Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 1993-09-08SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 1993, AT 7:00 PM Adjourned Regular Meeting: San Rafael City Council Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor Dorothy L. Breiner, Councilmember Paul M. Cohen, Councilmember Michael A. Shippey, Councilmember Joan Thayer, Councilmember Absent: None Others Present: Pamela J. Nicolai, City Manager Gary T. Ragghianti, City Attorney Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk PUBLIC HEARING - REZONING FROM THE PD (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) DISTRICT AND LI/O (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL/OFFICE) 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; 1615 EAST FRANCISCO BOULEVARD; CAL-PDX, INC., OWNER; AP 09-230-02 TO -13, -15 TO - 18, -20 TO -26, -32 TO -38 (P1) - File 5-5 x 10-2 x 10-3 x 10-5 x 10-7 Mayor Boro declared the Public Hearing opened. He noted that the Public Hearing had been opened at last night's regular City Council meeting and continued to tonight's meeting. He announced that he had spoken to the Planning Director and the attorneys for Home Depot as well as the attorney for Jackson's Hardware regarding the format for the first part of the meeting. There will first be a presentation from staff, followed by a presentation by a representative of Home Depot, and then attorney Albert Bianchi speaking for Jackson's Hardware. Each of these will take about 30 minutes. Council will then ask any questions they may have, and then the hearing will be opened up to the public for comments. He asked that the public comments be limited to about 3 minutes and attempt to avoid repeti- tion. Planning Director Pendoley stated that the issue before the Council tonight is rezoning. He explained that the direction we received from the State indicates that the City's General Plan is the City's constitution for development. This means that all of the land use decisions - the horizontal decisions where policy is set, and the vertical decisions where the Council decides whether to approve or deny the project - must be consistent with the General Plan. He stated that a zoning decision such as this is one of a short list of land use decisions which are legislative in character, unlike a use permit or design review which is quasi-judicial. In legislative decisions, the Council has a maximum amount of discretion, and in the case of San Rafael, the touchstone of the discretion is consistency with the General Plan. Accordingly, the burden of staff recommendations to the Planning Commission, the burden of the Commission's discussion, and of the staff report tonight was, and will be, on General Plan consistency. Mr. Pendoley explained that in doing a policy analysis, staff recommends that it would be appropriate to begin with the background section of the General Plan. He then explained, using the overhead, the Land Use background analysis of the General Plan, which indicates planning alternatives are to be developed and give focus to the policy development process. He stated the background is very important for understanding of the genesis of the policies and what they are all about. He noted that part of the background for the Land Use section had to do with economics, and referred to page 164 of the Plan in the background section, stating that it begins to lay the basis for an economic development policy. When the Plan was adopted, it had been noted that historically it had been economically and fiscally healthy and there had really not been a need for a conscious economic development policy. However, it points out that the Council had commissioned a study in 1985 to talk about the need for economic development policies in order to preserve the quality of life in this community, and said that in the future it would be critical for the City to have an economic development plan if the City was to maintain its position. He added that the Plan goes on to talk about retail development in San Rafael, and explains that it is the strongest part and biggest part of the revenue bench. He noted that retail sales tax at that time was generating 45 percent of the revenue, City- wide. However, the Plan raises a note of caution, and points out that the Corte Madera Town Center and the Village Center were either building or just opening, which could be threats to the City's retail base. It also mentions the Hahn Center in Novato, which at that time was not moving forward; however, that situation has changed radically, and most likely has had a significant impact on our sales tax revenue which is difficult to judge in this time of recession. It also points out that other parts of the retail sector are very strong. It says, "More impressive are home furnishings, building materials and automobiles. All three sectors for household sales have at lease three times that of the County". It concludes that if the City plans well, it can maintain and enhance this strong retail position in these sectors. Mr. Pendoley stated that in the staff analysis, emphasis is placed on not only enhancing the retail position, but maintaining the retail position. SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 1 SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 2 Mr. Pendoley noted that Land Use goal LU -B talks about the importance of maintaining and enhancing the City's revenue base. It points out that the revenue base is important for maintaining services and protecting residents, and it is also important that economic development should be guided to protect existing neighborhoods' natural resources. Mr. Pendoley added that a relevant policy is LU -13, noting that the LU -13 series lays the basis for the General Plan map, and explains that the allowed uses within various General Plan designations and the intensity of use. Mr. Pendoley explained that what is most relevant in this discussion tonight is LU -13(g) which talks about the allowed uses in the Light Industrial/Office land use designation. Mr. Pendoley noted he has outlined in the overhead and in the material distributed, and in the staff reports, the background information. He added that the last section of that policy states, "Specialty retail uses may be allowed to occupy minor portions of the Light Industrial/Office districts provided that the intensity and traffic allocation require- ments are met and the integrity of the District is not threatened." He explained this was the focus of a good deal of examination, discussion and debate at the Planning Commission. He pointed out that one question was, what is "specialty retail"? Staff had reviewed the history of the development of this policy, and consulted with Principal Planner Jean Hasser, who wrote it, and she explained that a lot of it was in the context of a couple of policy initiatives and development proposals which were "in the works" at that time. For instance, there was Costco which was being proposed for a Light Industrial/Office District. In the course of the Public Hearings in the mid -1980's, on the General Plan, there was a good deal of discussion on whether a specialty retail use like Costco should be allowed in a Light Industrial/Office District. The underlying language was added to the policy in response to that discussion to permit specialty retail uses such as "big box" uses, such as Costco, and staff would recommend to the Council such as Home Depot, to be permitted in the Light Industrial/Office District. Mr. Pendoley reported that other issues which were debated were the meaning of preserving the integrity of the District and occupying minor portions. The Commission concluded, with a strong recommendation to staff, that minor portions did not speak to an individual zoning district but spoke to the designation City-wide. He noted that Principal Planner Delimont, in her presentation, will analyze that in terms of the applications before the Council tonight. Mr. Pendoley pointed out that these issues were discussed in more detail in the East San Rafael section of the General Plan. He noted the Plan was adopted in 1988 and updated in 1990 when a specific neighborhood plan was adopted for East San Rafael and incorporated into the General Plan. He noted that three relevant policies remain the same. One is ESR, East San Rafael No. 8, which says that, "In addition to City-wide economic development priorities which would be maintained in this neighborhood, priorities should also be given to projects which benefit the East San Rafael neighborhood". He explained that one of the considerations was economic development projects which would provide the opportunity for the employment of a high percentage of neighborhood residents. This issue was discussed at the Planning Commission in relation to this policy, and in response to a discussion in the staff report and presentations by the proponents for the project. Mr. Pendoley explained that East San Rafael policy ESR -11 is also relevant. It reflects very directly the discussion which is in the background section of the General Plan. It talks about building and automotive uses. It says, "Maintain the availability of sites for building automotive and related service industries for the sake of San Rafael's economy and for the convenience of residents and businesses". Mr. Pendoley added that is a deliberate economic development policy coming out of the background section and being related in a very specific way to East San Rafael. Mr. Pendoley noted that policy ESR -13 states, "Certain types of limited retail and commer- cial service uses that would service the immediate commercial or industrial neighborhood would be allowed". He pointed out that it also recognized - and again, a reflection of the economic development discussion - the need to maintain places for building sales outlets. He noted it talks very specifically about large yard operations and gives lumber yards as an example. In other words, it recognizes very specifically those discussions of the home improvement and building supply as an important part of our retail base. Mr. Pendoley stated that staff thinks it sees, in the foregoing capsule analysis of General Plan goals and policies, a recognition of the need for an economic development policy, the very conscious development of an economic development policy, and a series of interrelated land use and neighborhood goals aimed at promoting certain types of specialty retail which would maintain and enhance our retail base. He added that the Planning Commission concurs in these conclusions. Mr. Pendoley pointed out that another important part of analyzing the policies is to consider the precedents which the Council has set. He stated that in the staff report several were suggested. One is Priority Project Procedure (PPP) decisions which the Council has made. He noted that over the several years that the Council has held PPP competitions, the Council has consistently made findings that certain specialty retail SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 2 SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 3 uses were consistent with the Light Industrial/Office District. The Council has followed up on that with the approval of the Orchard Supply Hardware outlet, a similar situation, a specialty retail use with emphasis on home improvement and building supply in a Light Industrial/Office land use designation zoning district. Mr. Pendoley stated that a final consideration is a study prepared by Economic and Plan- ning Systems. He explained that the study was prepared in response to a direct request from many speakers before the Council, as well as the Councilmembers themselves. The Council had asked for an analysis of how much sales tax revenue might be generated by this proposal and how much of that revenue would, in fact, be new sales tax, how much would be reflected in captured sales from other outlets in the community, and then what would be the cost if this project were not approved. Would there be a potential sales tax loss? Mr. Pendoley explained he is discussing this in relation to the policy analysis which is in the staff report and which he is attempting to summarize. He explained this study is to explore the issue of whether this project has the potential to enhance and/or maintain the revenue base, and the study was done with extremely conservative assumptions. He referred to the report on the overhead slide, and stated that the consultant's point of departure is the 1992 building supply/farm equipment base, which was slightly more than $85 million in San Rafael. He noted that the study recommends that if this project were approved it would stand to recapture sales which have been lost to Home Depots in Rohnert Park and El Cerrito. That recapture would be slightly more than $5 million and about $4.5 million in the case of Rohnert Park and El Cerrito, respectively. He pointed out that would leave total new sales to Home Depot of $20.6 or $20.7 million in San Rafael. This is assuming the estimate of total sales of $30 million in the store. There is a conservative estimate of the capture of revenue from other stores in the community of 200. The result is a total net gain in sales Citywide, of slightly under $13 million, with a sales tax yield for the City of just under $130,000. He stated this goes to the question of, does this project have the potential to enhance the revenue base? There is also the question of, does this have the potential to maintain the base? Or, what could we lose if this was not approved? What is the economic cost to the City, if it were not approved? Mr. Pendoley explained that using the same base figure from 1992, the consultant projects a 15% reduction in sales. In other words, if a Home Depot were built to service Marin, in another part of the County in lieu of San Rafael, this consultant projects that at least 150 of existing home supply sales would go to that other Home Depot. We would also lose the potential of recapturing sales which are currently going from Marin over to El Cerrito and up to Rohnert Park, and potentially $13 million would be lost. That would mean a total net loss to the revenue base of $25.7 million. It would appear, based on this study, that an approval of this project would, in fact, help to maintain the existing revenue base. The total difference, the aggregate which could be earned in new revenue and what could be lost in relocation to another Marin community, is over $380,000. Mr. Pendoley concluded that an economic analysis would tend to indicate that an approval of this project would be consistent with the economic development and policies in the General Plan. He announced that Principal Planner Sheila Delimont will speak to the specifics of the rezoning which is before the Council tonight, and give staff's analysis of its consistency with the General Plan. Ms. Delimont reported that the Planned Development issues before the Council tonight will set forth the allowable land uses and development standards for this site. She noted that it is attached as Exhibit A to the Ordinance which was part of the July 28, 1993 staff report to the Council. She pointed out that the Council has before it two proposed changes to the Ordinance. One expands the Ordinance to incorporate additional findings from the Planning Commission staff report. In addition, there are proposed changes to page 6 of the Development Standards which she will address shortly. She noted that staff has reviewed this, and feel that the Planned District is consistent with the General Plan. The District specifies a number of uses, and included in the uses are 102,190 square foot warehouse retail store with 22,200 square foot garden center. This is the Home Depot project. In addition to this, there would be allowed 371,328 square feet of Light Industrial/Office, of which 25% can be office; 45,621 square feet of office, and an additional 88,200 square feet of specialty retail. Ms. Delimont noted that the specialty retail uses are specifically limited to parcels 1 through 4 on the site, and will require approval of a use permit. It also will require a traffic study so we can be assured that the traffic generated is consistent with the General Plan. Ms. Delimont reported that staff had recommended to the Planning Commission that this specialty retail component of the Home Depot site, plus the additional 88,260 square feet of specialty retail was consistent with the Light Industrial/Office land use designation. She pointed out that Mr. Pendoley has just outlined for the Council the various policies which apply to economic development. Staff believes this component furthers those economic development policies. Ms. Delimont stated she will concentrate on LU -13(G), which specifies that specialty retail should comprise a minor component of the light industrial designation. When Principal Planner Jean Hasser wrote this policy, her interpretation was that the District, in this case, was synonymous with land use category, and staff believes that is the correct interpretation. She stated that if we look at this in comparison with the entire SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 4 Light Industrial/Office land use designation in San Rafael, this would comprise only 20 of the total acreage within that land use designation. She stated that if you look at it in comparison with the entire Home Depot site, a maximum of 17.2 acres of the entire 42 acre site could be developed with this use. She pointed out that in East San Rafael, staff looked at the total number of acres which are currently undeveloped, which have a Light Industrial/ Office designation, and there are 170 acres. Therefore, no matter how you view this project, based on Jean Hasser's reading - and she wrote this particular policy her interpretation is that we should use the entire designation. In that case it is 20. If you use the more conservative approach and look at all of East San Rafael, you are looking at 17.2 acres out of 170 acres, which is approximately 100. If you look at the site itself, which staff does not think is a correct interpretation, because in the case of Orchard Supply it was the use of the entire site and the proposed Costco project also would have used the entire site, so that interpretation would not be consistent with past decisions. Staff feels that this could be construed to be a minor component of the site and, in particular, you also have Development Standards, the use permit requirement, and the prohibition on developing Parcels 5 and 6 with this type of use, which will further protect the integrity of the District as required by that Policy. Ms. Delimont reported that the Planning Commission had concurred with staff's interpre- tation that the land use policy allowed all of the specialty retail to proceed. If the City Council does not concur with that, they could delete the additional 88,260 square feet of specialty retail. She stated that staff recommends that if the Council were to do that, it would not help us to retain and implement our economic goals which Mr. Pendoley has just outlined. She noted that the PD District also has a number of Development Standards. The Floor Area Ratios (FARs) which are listed in the PD District are consis- tent with East San Rafael low impact area requirements. The District also specifies that only 1210 trips are allocated to the site, which is consistent with the General Plan, and that these trips cannot be exceeded. Also, within the PD District are a number of standards which relate to development of the site, and include building setbacks and landscape buffers. The Development Standards include a minimum setback of 100 feet from the edge of the wetlands as specified with Parcels 1 and 6, and this is consistent with our environmental goals, which require a minimum of 50 -foot setback, and 100 -foot setback on larger parcels when it has been verified through environmental review. Ms. Delimont noted that the City Council has some recommended changes to the landscape buffer requirement for this District. She explained that when they went through the hear- ing process, they were discussing the Final EIR (Environmental Impact Report) dealing with appropriate mitigations for wildlife impacts and there were some modifications made to the buffers based on the cross-sections which were provided. Staff has made these recommended changes to ensure that the PD District is consistent with the Final EIR recommendations. Staff has taken the language which was incorporated in the last staff report into the EIR, and incorporated it into the Master Plan as well. In conclusion, Ms. Delimont stated that staff does feel that this project would further the City's economic development goals. It is also consistent with East San Rafael policies in that East San Rafael policies foresaw that we would have both retail local serving uses and the overall larger economic goals of the City. Those policies, as Mr. Pendoley outlined, foresaw this use as well as local serving uses. The PPP (Priority Projects Procedure) process was also set up to include both those types of uses as well. Mr. Pendoley informed the Council that staff has proposed for their consideration a Resolution and an Ordinance. He explained that the Resolution, most importantly, adopts a mitigation and monitoring plan for this proposed zone change. It incorporates in great detail all of the mitigation and monitoring measures which were in the EIR which was approved last night. In addition, the Resolution has a Statement of Findings and Over- riding Considerations, the purpose of which is to explain in depth that the Council has considered the EIR prior to taking action on the proposed rezoning, and also to make an overriding finding with relation to the intent. Mr. Pendoley reminded the Council that was recommended as a long-term impact or would require overriding findings, particularly dust generated by automobiles from traffic. Mr. Pendoley stated that the second document for the Council's consideration is an Ordinance for first reading, which is the actual rezoning document. It incorporates findings which were considered by the Planning Commission and are required by the Zoning Ordinance. He noted that staff had done some "fine tuning" which was furnished to the Council tonight, and reflects exactly the Planning Commission's deliberations, findings and recommendations. In closing, Mr. Pendoley noted that Mr. Walter Keyser from Environmental and Planning Systems, who authored the Economic Impact Report, is present at the meeting. Councilmember Shippey informed Mr. Pendoley that he is having trouble in Tables 1 and 2 of the report. He explained that in Table 1 there is a figure, 20o reduction in sales at existing stores, which is counted in arriving at total net gain of sales, which is at the bottom of Table 1. He noted that bottom line is used in Table 2, and there is an addi- SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 4 SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 5 tional 15% reduction. It appears to him as double counting. Mr. Pendoley recommended that Mr. Keyser address that issue. Mr. Walter Keyser explained that basically what they are attempting to do in the report is to take an estimated loss of sales in Table 1, which would be the 20% in figuring that, and then moving into Table 2, showing that there would be additional - that you would have the $85 million, you would lose slightly less than the 20% back to calculate the loss in sales. He stated it is not a double count, because they are coming off the $85 million. Mayor Boro clarified, they are trying to do two different things. In the first table, they are trying to come up with the net loss or gain as a result of Home Depot coming to San Rafael. In Table 2, they are trying to come up with a number if Home Depot was not in San Rafael. Mr. Keyser stated that is correct. He added that one point of reference here is that these numbers are obviously just for the purpose of a conservative analysis and, in his view, the actual net gain in sales would likely be larger than this. Mr. Pendoley stated he thinks the distinction between the 20% and 15% is: If Home Depot were in San Rafael, it would perhaps be convenient for some customers of existing hardware stores to shop at Home Depot. An estimated impact is 200. If, on the other hand, it were in another community, perhaps not all of those 20% would go, just because hardware stores in San Rafael would be closer, so the loss to existing hardware stores would be 150. Councilmember Shippey replied that is justifiable, and he can follow that. Nevertheless, on Table 2 the 15% is listed, and right below that in line 3, $12,936,000 comes directly off net gain in Table 1. He stated it seems to him it has the 20% built in that, and that is the trouble he is having. Mr. Keyser replied, the idea is that the impact in one case is the shift of sales which are going from the existing stores to Home Depot, and in the latter example it is a slightly different number because some of those would not, in fact, be lost. Mr. Shippey responded, he can understand that, but he thinks it is an apparent 35% because they are counting the 20% from Table 1 and adding to it another 150. Mayor Boro stated he thinks that is the point. Mr. Keyser agreed. Mr. Shippey stated that is not what he hears. Councilmember Cohen stated he thinks Mr. Shippey makes a good point. He stated that the argument may be strengthened. In fact, if we are talking about foregone net use sales, the figure would be the $20 million from additional new sales in Home Depot in San Rafael. That $20 million in new sales would be in some community, but not in San Rafael, so that figure might actually go from $12.9 million to $20 million in foregone net new sales. Mr. Shippey responded, but what he is saying is that the $20 million is already built in. Mr. Cohen responded, "No, it is not". He explained that Table 1 assumes that - it takes existing taxable sales or building material of $85 million, says we are going to recapture $5 million or $4 million respectively from Rohnert Park and El Cerrito, and pump an addition -al $20 million in new sales in San Rafael generated by Home Depot; then appropriately backs out 20% lost from existing stores - $17 million - coming up with a bottom line net gain in sales of $12.9 million. He stated he thinks Mr. Shippey is right, that the $12.9 million figure is not the foregone net gain that should be on Table 2. The foregoing net gain figure which ought to be on Table 2 is the $20 million that is not going to accrue to San Rafael, but to Novato or Corte Madera or wherever Home Depot finds a place to land if it is not San Rafael. Mr. Shippey responded that, alternatively, you could simply not count that additional 15% and should come up with the same answer. Mr. Keyser replied that is correct. Councilmember Cohen stated that there is going to be an impact on existing sales. The down side - if we are talking about economic impact and economic plans for San Rafael - is Home Depot locating in this market outside of San Rafael so that there is the draining on existing stores without the corresponding offset of increase in taxable sales from the operation of Home Depot. That is what this table is intended to show us. Mr. Cohen added it does not seem to him that foregone net new sales should come off the bottom line of existing taxable sales in San Rafael, and he would question that. He noted that is on Table 2. Councilmember Cohen then stated we have an existing basic 1992 taxable sales in building supplies, $85 million. We are saying if Home Depot was to locate in Novato, presumably 15% of existing business would bleed off to that Home Depot operation, and that would be $12.7 or $12.9 million. Mr. Keyser agreed. Mr. Cohen continued, that deduction ought to leave us within what the 1994 total taxable sales in San Rafael ought to be, not $59 million but the $85 million less approximately $13 million. Mr. Keyser agreed that it could be done by that method. Mr. Cohen responded that the $59 million figure is not appropriate, in other words, to back out foregone net use sales from existing tax base, but it is appropriate to understand if there is a loss, an opportunity lost, if you will, it is a loss. Councilmember Shippey stated he thinks that is appropriate, but he also thinks it would be nice to have some sort of handle, since so much of the debate is focused around economic gain or loss to the community and to the City, and he does not think we have a handle on SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 5 SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 6 it yet. Councilmember Cohen replied it is appropriate to look closely at these numbers, and he appreciates this information being provided. He thinks we are a lot closer to really getting down to the bottom line than we were at the $300,000, and what was the basis of that, and this kind of analysis provides us with a tool to do that. He added he thinks we can fine tune a couple of these points and just conclude that the fact remains that, in one there is a net gain and in the other there is a net loss. Mr. Shippey stated that is assuming Home Depot is located elsewhere in the County, and Mr. Cohen replied that is correct, assuming there is a location elsewhere in the County. Mayor Boro inquired about the basis for coming up with the numbers in Table 1, where it refers to sales captured from Rohnert Park and from El Cerrito. Mr. Keyser replied that those numbers are based upon points of sale survey work that Home Depot has done. They have a very elaborate and detailed survey that they do on the location of the residents, the people who are buying from their stores, and that information was made available to this firm. For that reason, he believes those numbers are quite accurate, based upon that point of residents survey data which Home Depot has conducted. Mayor Boro clarified that what Mr. Keyser is saying is, with that number of roughly $9.2 million, $300,000 of the 20% reduction of $85 million, we have already had $9 million "out the door". Mr. Keyser responded, in effect what this is saying is that those existing Home Depots on the periphery are siphoning off or shifting sales which might otherwise occur in San Rafael to those other locations, and it represents an opportunity to recap- ture that amount of money. He stated in fact that is the whole logic of the location, or at least one of the logics of the location. He added he would also make the distinction that those revenues which are already lost by the existing retail base from the additional percentage that they set up as a kind of worst case, that is, the 20% which would be shifted in addition. He explained that those are two completely different numbers. Councilmember Breiner stated she was concerned that there was possibly some duplication or double counting in those sales captured from Rohnert Park and El Cerrito, because Rohnert Park has been opened much longer and El Cerrito just recently. She asked would it not be logical to assume that some of the 15% might have been shifting? Mr. Keyser replied that would be the case, but the survey data was happening at the same time so that was accoun- ted for. That was his understanding. There being no further comments or questions from the Council, Mayor Boro called on attorney Jay Paxton, attorney for the landowner in the project. Mr. Paxton introduced the applicant's and landowners' representatives, including the design team and landscape architects. He stated he would like to ask Mr. Bob Wright of Treffinger, Walz & MacLeod, project architect, to give a brief presentation on the layout of the project. He added that Mr. Bill Ciccone of Home Depot will then give an explanation of Home Depot. He stated he would like to be given the opportunity to speak as the last speaker and have a few moments to reply to any points which come up in the meantime. Mr. Wright stated he will briefly discuss the merits of the project, since the Council is quite familiar with Shoreline Center and the Home Depot project. He explained that the project originally consisted of 60 aces located between East Francisco Boulevard and San Rafael Bay. He noted there are approved maps currently on file for two portions of this project which consist of the total 60 acres. He pointed to a map indicating the first of four parcels called Shoreline Industrial Park, and then indicated the additional 27 parcels. He noted that the first four parcels are the ones located right off Francisco Boulevard, and the other 27 are east of that. That accounts for the total 60 gross acres. He noted that there are approximately 11-1/2 acres of the Shoreline Band Park which have been dedicated to the City. He pointed out on the map the location of the 1-1/2 acres which have also been dedicated to the City for a park. He noted that with this current approved plan, and deducting the roadways, that leaves a total of almost 39-1/2 acres of buildable land. Mr. Wright explained that in a letter to Cal -Pox in May, 1989, the City had requested that a Master Plan be prepared for these four parcels to ensure their compatibility with the surrounding Districts. The City also suggested in that letter a simpler process, rezoning of these four parcels to comply with the PD zoning for the existing 27 parcels. He stated that they are attempting to rezone these four parcels to combine them with those already approved PD zoned parcels. Mr. Wright further explained that the current proposal is to also reduce the project from 27 parcels down to 6. The loop road is being eliminated and Shoreline Park now will terminate at the City park. Mr. Wright showed the exact location on the site plan. He noted this now produces approximately 42 acres of developable land as opposed to the 39-1/2 acres. Mr. Wright explained, with the aid of additional exhibits, the issue of the landscape buffers which were discussed thoroughly during the EIR process. He noted that the landscape buffers run the entirety of all of the various parcels. He then addressed the street planting, along the entire Shoreline Parkway, consisting of Sycamore trees, berming and also a bicycle path which runs the entire length of Shoreline Parkway down to access SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 6 SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 7 the City park. He noted that also included in the Master Plan are guidelines for off- street parking as well as guidelines for site lighting and for signage for the buildings. Mr. Wright noted that Home Depot is proposing to be the first project at Shoreline Center. He described the project as having the main indoor retail area approximately 102,000 square feet, with a 22,000 square foot garden center at the west side. He pointed out the primary access on the rendering, showing automobiles coming in and focusing on the central entrance to the building. He noted the secondary entrances and exits on each corner. He pointed out the entrance for truck traffic, and showed how the road circles around behind the building, with loading docks at the rear, and exiting out onto Kerner Boulevard. This will avoid having truck traffic in the main parking area. Mr. Wright pointed out that total parking provided for the site is 550 cars. The building design itself is of tilt -up concrete. The parapet height ranges between 28 and 32 feet, with the central marquee containing the Home Depot sign being 38 feet, and the garden center fencing around the outside approximately 20 feet. Mr. Bill Ciccone, District Manager for Home Depot in Northern California stated he would like to address any concerns which are brought up. He explained about the jobs they will create, and the Home Depot's philosophy of community membership, and how San Rafael residents will benefit from the Home Depot. He pointed out that the Home Depot has dedicated employees, which keeps the customers coming back. He stated he is impressed by the loyalty shown by the employees of Jackson's Hardware, and applauds the management style which produces such loyalty. He noted the training and benefits received by the employees of Home Depot. He stated they want and will seek their employees in San Rafael and have promised a specific local recruiting effort to find them. Mr. Ciccone gave the Council his personal background, and stated he has worked with Home Depot for ten years, starting as a sales person in the hardware department. He came up through the ranks and is now responsible for a large portion of northern California stores and has approximately 2,000 people reporting to him. Mr. Ciccone stated that Home Depot has an excellent reputation for community service in the markets it serves. It is committed to contributing to programs which provide rehabil- itation and renovation of housing such as Habitat for Humanity. He stated that on an average, their total community contribution total is about $25,000 annually per store. In addition to corporate programs, there is a discretionary fund of $5,000 at the store local level, and the store managers can use this money to support worthy community causes of their choice. He added they actively support involvement of their employees in the commu- nity, both with their time and their money. He added that employees making contributions to recognized nonprofit organizations may apply for matching gifts up to $500 through the Home Depot Matching Gift Program. He noted that their formal corporate program, called "Team Depot" encourages their employees to participate in volunteer activities in their local communities. Mr. Ciccone noted that Home Depot provides real benefits to residents of San Rafael and their entire trade area. He stated that the rights and benefits of San Rafael consumers have been largely ignored in this debate, and what the Council has heard from them and what they will probably hear tonight enforces Home Depot's belief. People do travel outside their community to get better prices, and these are tax dollars which are forever lost to the City of San Rafael. He added that, as has been his experience in other areas, people will continue to patronize local businesses when they serve their needs. People need training and technical assistance and appreciate getting it from Home Depot. People do not appreciate the thought of their government regulating competition. Regarding competition, Mr. Ciccone stated that those who are serious about competing can do well. On the other hand, those retailers who keep short hours, maintain high prices, offer less service and expertise, will not do well against Home Depot or any other major retailer. In conclusion, Mr. Ciccone stated that Home Depot's low prices provide a strong incentive for customers to shop there, and consequently when Home Depot enters the market the result is often a lowering of prices at other home improvement retailers to the advantage of local residents. He added that such competition will benefit San Rafael residents and will make businesses sharper and more responsive to customers' needs. He stated that San Rafael residents deserve a competitive and price -conscious retail environment, and now they have to travel many miles to get it. Mr. Paxton stated he would like to focus on a summary of the process, and how we got to where we are. He noted it has been a long and bruising process, from his group's point of view. He explained that the project really goes farther back in time than the Planning Commission or the Citizens' Advisory Committee. It goes back to December, 1985, when the City started its General Plan process, to establish goals and priorities. He noted that over the years, staff has worked on revising the Plan. The goals were intended to serve as a guide and, to some extent, as an incentive to landowners throughout San Rafael to bring forward projects which met the goals. He noted that is the key purpose of any General Plan, to identify City goals and to encourage landowners to develop their land in SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 7 SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 8 accordance with those goals. He explained that those goals which the City identified, such as affordable housing, neighborhood serving uses and high tax generating uses, were then carried forward in the Priority Projects Process (PPP), which embodied and was responsive to, and created pursuant to, the specific policies of the General Plan. He stated that the landowner, in this case, did exactly what the General Plan was intended by the City to do. They found a user who was responsive to the goals in the General Plan and brought them to the City - Home Depot. As the General Plan required, they went through the PPP process. Home Depot was analyzed on the very same basis, gross sales tax revenues, which were applied to all other projects who were competing as high tax generat- ing uses in the PPP process since it was instituted. He noted those included Orchard Supply Hardware and Toys R Us. He added that, at the end of that process the Council, as did the Planning Commission, concluded that Home Depot met the criteria they had estab- lished under the General Plan, and they accorded Home Depot that priority. He stated that, in essence, this project is a result of the General Plan working exactly as the City intended it. Mr. Paxton stated that the rest of the project besides Home Depot, which is embodied in this Master Plan, is also responsive to the General Plan, although far less controversial than Home Depot. He noted that land that is the subject of this project is currently subdivided and zoned for commercial uses. However, the project before the Council is much closer to the General Plan priorities in that it brings Home Depot, a high sales tax - generating use. Mr. Paxton reported that there is also an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) involved, and it is a massive document. He stated he believes it is safe to say that it is easily the most exhaustive project EIR which has been done in the history of San Rafael. He added he believes that the EIR answers every question which could reasonably be asked, and a few which could not reasonably be asked about this project. He stated that in each case, except only for the PM -10, the answer has been the same, that the project with the proposed mitigations brings no significant adverse impact on the environment. He stated that equally important to the study of the adverse impacts, and the ascertainment that there really are none here, is the question of what are the benefits of the project. He stated that one important benefit is the jobs, of which there will be 150 to 200. They include an excellent training program, good pay and benefits, including hiring people who live in the vicinity. Home Depot will be working with the Canal Community Alliance to make sure the residents know of the opportunities for employment. Mr. Paxton stated there has been much discussion on sales tax. He added his group did not want to have an economic study done, but the City hired an independent consultant. He noted there are many ways in which such a study can be viewed, but this report clearly establishes that Home Depot brings with it very important benefits in terms of net sales taxes. Mr. Paxton noted that the criteria used in the PPP process dealt with gross sales taxes, while this report deals with net sales taxes. Even on a net basis there are substantial benefits to Home Depot being here, and there are considerably higher benefits having Home Depot here as opposed to it being in neighboring communities. He pointed out that Home Depot has said they intend to serve Marin from somewhere in Marin, and they would very much prefer to do it in San Rafael if they can. Mr. Paxton noted the benefits to the consumers, including their record of charitable contributions within a community where they are located. Mr. Paxton stated that the opponents of this project ignore the benefits and focus on what they believe are negatives, the principal one being competition. He noted some of the opponents have said that Home Depot prices are not too low, they only create the illusion of low prices, and they contend that there will be large-scale failures of businesses. Mr. Paxton noted the opponents had studies done on those issues, and he referred to one by Sedway & Associates as outlined in Mrs. Sedway's letter of July 7, 1993, regarding a study on Home Depot in Vallejo. It shows that from 1991 to 1992, the year that Home Depot came to Vallejo, the number of building material stores went down from 28 to 27, a decrease of two stores when you take into account the Home Depot opening. The same Sedway report indicates that sales in building materials in Vallejo during that same period went up 200. Mr. Paxton noted that the opponents of the project often refer to Atlanta, stating these people are not from here, they are from the South. He stated that Atlanta is Home Depot's original and most intense market, and during 1982 to 1990, the household growth went up 300. During that same period, the number of home improvement retailers went up by more than 47%. It went from 509 to 749, only 8 of which were Home Depot stores. He stated that if the opponents have not been able to go out and find examples of devastated cities, there is good reason for that. He stated it would mean keener competition if Home Depot were to come here. The people who are here will need to focus on excellent service and to be open at hours when people will be buying home improvement products such as Sundays and evenings. They will have to charge fair prices and give good personalized service. He stated in that way it will be up to each competitor to decide what the effect of Home Depot will be on their competitors, and the competitors will have to decide how to respond. SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 8 SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 9 With regard to the comments regarding traffic, Mr. Paxton agreed that it is a problem and the EIR has studied traffic thoroughly. In addition to the EIR, the City has hired another independent traffic consultant to review the EIR as a part of the EIR process. He noted that in writing the General Plan, the Levels of Service (LOS) were very carefully studied and thought out. He pointed out that the traffic consultants, TJKM, confirm what the EIR found, and what the staff found in the PPP process, and what the City determined in that process was correct, that the traffic generated by the project is within the limits of acceptance in the General Plan. He noted TJKM specifically found, "Based on our review of the Shoreline Center Draft Final Environmental Impact Report, it appears that CH2M Hill followed standard transportation planning practices in evaluating the traffic impacts of the Shoreline Center development. The data collected, trip generation and distribution and analysis performed, are all typical of the procedures followed for such an analysis". The report goes on to say, "The study intersections will continue to operate acceptably with the additional traffic generated by the Home Depot project". Mr. Paxton explained that about 3/4 of the trips which are going to be used for Home Depot here are what is called in the General Plan, "historic trips". They are trips which are there as a matter of right on that property, which reflect the fact that the property had a prior use and that people used roadways to get to that prior use. He pointed out that the new trips which are being used by Home Depot are only about 250 of the trips which Home Depot has. The result of that is that the new trips which are taken from the ones you have to allocate to any project are only 250 of the trips for Home Depot, and they are unusually effective on a per trip basis in generating sales tax revenue for the City. He stated he thinks it is safe to say they are far more effective than any other trip which could be spent for any other sales tax use. Mr. Paxton then addressed the hazardous materials issue, which has been raised by opponents of the project. He noted this project has been through an exhaustive process, a State closure for a landfill to the complete satisfaction and approval of the California Integrated Waste Management Board, which concluded that the property was satisfactory in its condition for development, and that it did not present any hazards to the community. Water quality has also been extensively monitored and there is, as the Council knows, an ongoing process with the Regional Water Quality Control Board for extensive water quality monitoring. He stated there is not a problem there. Mr. Paxton noted that wildlife has been raised as an issue and, after extensive study and on-site review, the California Department of Fish and Game has accepted the proposed mitigation measures as adequate to protect wildlife, both the wildlife of the Bay and the wildlife of the adjacent Canalways marsh. The EIR simply establishes that there will not be a significant impact on wildlife. He noted that this is a bare, filled piece of ground which does not have much value as a habitat. Mr. Paxton stated he feels the issue here is that the opponents want to maintain high prices and high profits which they have enjoyed over the years. He stated that is under- standable in human terms, and he can understand their desire to make things easier by not having competition. He stated it is ironic that the opponents use terms like "selling out" and "fist full of dollars", to describe what would happen if the Council approved this project. He stated that when they talk about selling out, what they are really saying is, "Protect our high prices, protect our high profits that result from those prices. Save us from having to compete like the rest of the world does". Mr. Paxton noted there was an article from the Wall Street Journal which was sent in by a citizen and was in the packets, referring to Wal-Mart, and written by a retail consultant. It said that instead of getting on the ball, finding a nitch in which they can compete and making investments in parking or promotion, it is becoming easier in some places just to claim victim status and fight politically to keep out competitors like Wal-Mart. He stated that is true for Wal-Mart and it is certainly true in this circumstance. He stated that the widespread introduction of stores such as Costco, the Good Guys and Home Depot, have shown that people want to shop where they get low prices, reasonable service and good quality merchandise. He noted that the move of Oshman's to Novato was viewed by some as that being the future of San Rafael. However, they moved to a larger store next to Costco, and opened a Super Oshman's with a wide range of merchandise, low prices and an opportunity for people to compare their wares, try them out in the store, and enjoy them before they buy them. It has been a great success. He stated the City should think about the future of retailing having in this case moved to Novato. He stated the question for the Council is, do you, as the opponents of the project ask, ignore the changes in retail, keep Home Depot out, protect the people who are here from having to compete, or do you allow the free marketplace to work, making for lower prices and better service for the citizens of San Rafael and other customers of home improvement goods in Marin? He stated the Council's choice is between a vibrant and alive retail market driven by competition in the "good old American way", or to say that we are not to have competition in San Rafael, and let the competition go elsewhere. In conclusion, Mr. Paxton stated that this project which comes before the Council has a direct response to the priorities which were laid down in the General Plan. It asked people to bring forward projects which met those policies, and that is exactly what this SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 9 Page 10 landowner did. He stated this represents fulfill the policies of the General Plan, as a priority. He noted that those taxes citizens, which are necessary to maintain that the Council consider and accept the described. SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 a first-rate opportunity for the Council to which recognizes high sales tax generating uses will help the city to provide services to its the quality of life in San Rafael. He urged many benefits of this project which he has Mayor Boro thanked Mr. Paxton, and called on attorney Albert Bianchi, representing Jackson's Hardware. Mr. Bianchi noted there are others here with him who would like to make brief presenta- tions. They include their traffic consultant, Bob Harrison, as well as their planning consultant, Karlena Palomares. He stated he respectfully disagrees with Mr. Paxton regarding the issue which is before the Council. It is not as black -and -white as it was portrayed, but the real issue is whether or not the Council ought to participate in the destruction of an existing business community which over the years has served the community very, very well, and should instead advocate in favor of a large, national box retailer whose marketing methods consist of moving into a community, taking over the community, in effect, by whatever means are available to it, and driving out all of the competition. Mr. Bianchi explained they are not asking for special favors but only for the opportunity to compete fairly, and they are not going to be able to compete fairly with a monolithic operation of this kind. He stated that by approving this project, we would be surrender- ing our way of life here. We would be surrendering, to a large degree, the physical appearance of parts of our business community because they would be driven out of business. He added we would certainly be advocating and being harmed in the financial character and the personality of San Rafael. He stated the Council is going to change the nature of the City of San Rafael if they approve this project. He stated that is not at all what the business people who have supported this community for a long time wish to see the Council do. Mr. Bianchi noted that it is remarkable that, at this late date, we are being faced by claims that economic considerations ought to drive the approval of the project. He recalled that it was his group, the opponents of the project, who initiated the demand for economic information. It was then vigorously opposed by both the Planning staff and also the proponents of the project. He stated it was opposed by them for a very good reason, and that is that the financial or economic study which has been prepared is not meaning- ful. One of the many reasons it is not meaningful is that it does not take into account the course of reality. He explained his reason for that statement, stating that the economic study is premised on the proposition that the Home Depot will end up here in San Rafael, and this in some way will then exclude El Cerrito and Rohnert Park and any other Home Depot operations in the area. He noted that on May 5th of this year, when it was convenient for the proponents of the project to take this position, the real estate manager of Home Depot appeared before the San Rafael Redevelopment Agency Advisory Committee and, in response to a question, said that regardless of whether or not Home Depot is approved for San Rafael, probably within the next four to five years, Home Depot would be looking to go into the City of Novato. He noted this is not reflected in the economic analysis, and that renders the economic analysis a bunch of figures which have no foundation in fact because, if Home Depot is true to their word and do go into Novato within the next four to five years, what will San Rafael have accomplished? We will have lost the businesses which are here today and which have served this community for the past many decades, we will have lost the business which generates out of the north part of this county, and we will be left with the Home Depot which dictates the financial character of the market which it governs here in the San Rafael area. Mr. Bianchi pointed out that this does not harm only the hardware stores. It harms as well a plethora of the hundreds of product lines and carriers of product lines which Home Depot covers. It will harm paint stores because they carry paint; it will harm tile stores, floor covering, lumber, nursery and garden supplies, roofing, insulation, heating and air conditioning. He noted we are not talking about a single hardware store, or a single type of business, but about hundreds of types of businesses which exist and which will be impacted negatively by this project if it should be approved. Mr. Bianchi stated he is gratified by one thing. He noted that the Planning staff, which from the inception - and practically before the inception of this project - has favored its approval and the proponents have tonight focused to a great degree on the General Plan of the City of San Rafael because as has already been stated, if this proposal does not meet that General Plan, then this proposal cannot be approved. He stated he will go over briefly several areas where the General Plan is clearly violated by this proposal. He explained that he has some drawings or recitals of the General Plan to display on the overhead, which will make it easier to follow. He explained each exhibit as it was shown on the overhead. SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 10 SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 11 Mr. Bianchi first addressed LU -42, which allows "limited retail and service use areas which serve area businesses and employees to locate throughout industrial office areas". He questioned that Home Depot would fit this description, but, instead, the proponents of Home Depot acknowledge and indeed they boast, that it is a regional enterprise and, as such, violates that segment or element of the General Plan. Mr. Bianchi then referred to East San Rafael (ESR) policies in the General Plan, which contains ESR -8, Limited Retail Service Uses. He read, "Allow limited retail or service uses which serve neighborhood businesses or employees to locate throughout the industrial office area... Land uses with large yard operations and limited retail building square footage may be considered appropriate in industrial office and industrial areas upon site specific review". Mr. Bianchi noted that such uses include "automobile sales centers and lumber yards". He stated that, again, Home Depot does not qualify under the General Plan, either as limited or intended to serve neighborhood business or employees, nor is it an automobile sales center, nor is it a lumber yard, neither of which would produce the kind of traffic and other problems which would be generated by a Home Depot. He explained that Home Depot, according to its own proponents and own claims, is a major regional big box retailer. It should not be allowed to masquerade as something else simply for the purpose of trying to squeeze it into the requirements of the General Plan, because it does not meet the requirements of the General Plan. Mr. Bianchi referred to LU -39 in the General Plan, and its designated "Convenience Shopping". It states, "Encourage neighborhood retail stores and services in existing residential neighborhoods and where new development warrants such facilities". He questioned how Home Depot and the Shoreline Center encourage neighborhood retail stores and services in existing residential neighborhoods, since there is no neighborhood in that area. It is a sort of Oakland, "there is no there there", and it does not meet the requirements of the General Plan. He asked what new development is in that area which warrants services provided by the Home Depot and the Shoreline Center at this location? He stated the answer is clear, you have none. Mr. Bianchi added that another area of the General Plan needs to be looked at, LU -41, "Existing Business Areas". It states, "Support and encourage the upgrading of existing commercial areas consistent with infrastructure needs". He explained that the proposed project does not support or encourage the upgrading of any existing commercial area because there is none there. The development of this project would take business away from existing commercial areas, and it would lead inevitably to the death of many of these existing commercial businesses. He asked the Council that if they vote for this project, and make a finding that this project meets the requirement of the General Plan, will they be able to look in the mirror tomorrow morning and see someone who voted honestly in accordance with their own rules as established in their own General Plan? Will they be able to make this finding and say, "I did that, and Home Depot certainly meets that requirement"? Mr. Bianchi stated he does not think so. Mr. Bianchi then referred to the General Plan 2000 land use map, which designates this site for light industrial use, not a retail use, has a policy that others have mentioned today and upon which they apparently rely. He stated he is astounded that they would rely on this policy, which is LU -13(g), but the planning staff and the proponents love it. He asked that the Council read it, and see if they can make the Home Depot project fit within the confines of the requirement. He noted it allows "minor" - Mr. Bianchi then digressed and stated the word must mean something to somebody. He does not care what Jean Hasser, who may have drafted the document, says it means. She is not the one who voted on it, the City Council voted on it, so what it means to her is immaterial. He stated that what it means to the citizenry, and what it means to the Council, is material. What it means to the citizenry is what it says. It says, "Minor specialty retail use in Light Industrial/ Office Districts". Mr. Bianchi pointed out the City does not have an Ordinance, regula- tion or adopted policy which gives any objective criteria to the meaning of the word "minor". He stated that, in and of itself, is probably sufficient to constitute a violation of due process because the people are entitled to know what is meant by the regulations which the City imposes. He added that if they use a word in the General Plan, we have to know what it means; otherwise, we are going to take it to mean what it ordinarily would in the context of a dictionary definition. If you use that meaning, "minor" is defined as meaning "inferior in importance". Mr. Bianchi asked that the Council think about that meaning in relation to Home Depot, "inferior in importance". He noted that the Council has just heard that it is the most important thing that is going to happen in this section of the County, so he does not think we can say it is inferior in importance. He added that the dictionary also says that "minor" means "comparatively unimportant". He asked - is this project comparatively unimportant? Mr. Bianchi pointed out that another definition is, "lower in standing or reputation, as others of the same kind". He asked, does this project fit within that definition of minor? He noted that Home Depot would occupy 11 acres, with a building footprint of almost 124,000 square feet. The eight -story building in this area, the Courthouse Square building, has less than 100,000 square feet of office space, and this would have 124,000. SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 11 SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 12 Mr. Bianchi noted that staff has pointed out that 17.2 acres of the 42 acre Shoreline site is proposed for so-called specialty retail use. That means that 41% of the light industrial/office site is being proposed for the use that is before the Council this evening, and that is certainly more than a minor portion of this project. It is more than a minor portion of the District, in terms of both physical and economic impacts and especially negative impacts. He stated it would clearly be a major facility of this type in all of San Rafael and probably in all of Marin County. He stated he thinks the Council has to focus on what is meant by the clear language in the General Plan which says they can only have a minor retail use at this site. He noted that minor does not depend solely on size, and the Council has been misled in this regard. He noted that size is one factor, and is one way you can determine whether something is minor or major. However, that is one factor only, and minor depends as well on impact. Mr. Bianchi gave as an illustration the bomb which dropped on Hiroshima in 1945 and destroyed the city was only 10-1/2 feet long and 29 inches in diameter. He stated minor does not mean size alone, it also means impact, and the impact really counts. He asked that the Council consider that and take it into account when they judge the meaning of the word "minor". He stated that if those minor retail uses have the sort of impact which these people have promised that it will have, then that use is not a minor use and cannot qualify as fitting within the General Plan. Mr. Bianchi concluded by stating the difference between the bomb he mentioned and the situation this evening, is that he hopes his group is not the enemy and they ask, "Don't drop that bomb on us and destroy our businesses, our way of life and their community". Mr. Bianchi stated he would like to ask Mr. Bob Harrison, their traffic consultant, to comment on some of the traffic consequences which they have analyzed since the last time they addressed the Council. After Mr. Harrison, Ms. Karlena Palomares, their Planning Consultant, will make a brief presentation. Mr. Bob Harrison stated he is a transportation planning consultant based in Tiburon, and will provide more information on the traffic analysis for Home Depot. He stated that tonight he will focus on the relationship of the analysis to the General Plan, and specif- ically to the PPP and why he thinks that the PPP costs need to be revisited for only this project. He stated that the report to the City Council dated yesterday suggests that most of the answers to the traffic questions were provided by TJKM in their August 30 letter but, in fact, the TJKM letter did not reply to some of the specifics, particularly around the PPP project. Mr. Harrison explained that some of the questions asked by Councilmembers which he does not think were answered by TJKM, include: How does the method used in the Home Depot DEIR (Draft EIR) analysis compare to the method used to calculate levels of service (LOS) in the PPP process and in the General Plan? What would the effect on the PPP process of changing from this method that was used in the prior analysis to the one which is used in the Home Depot EIR? Finally, does the use of a new method to calculate LOS require a complete review of the PPP process? Mr. Harrison raised what he called a non -traffic issue. He stated that it is his under- standing that the Home Depot received a PPP determination in May, 1991, and the City's PPP Resolution requires that these determinations are valid for just one year. He noted the PPP does expire after one year unless the building permit is issued, construction has begun, or a time extension has been granted. He pointed out that requests for time extensions are required to be heard by the Planning Commission at the same time as it hears all new applications for a PPP. He stated that his review of the PPP file could find no record of a Planning Commission action to extend the Home Depot PPP. He added he assumes he can get a quick answer on that issue. Mr. Harrison pointed out that during the PPP discussions in 1991, there was an assumption that there was going to be some additional street capacity, namely Andersen Drive, being extended in a timely fashion. In fact, it was hoped that the Andersen Drive Extension would be completed about the same time Home Depot would be under construction so that when the project came on line, there would be that additional capacity. He stated that now, based on information provided by the staff, it appears that the funding for Andersen Drive will not be there until 1995. Since a project of that size would take at least a couple of years to build, it will probably be 1997 before Andersen Drive Extension is in place. Mr. Harrison stated that, in addition to the lack of funding for Andersen Drive, it appears that there is another issue which may affect the timing; that is the fact that the owners of the Northwestern Pacific Railroad right-of-way have not yet granted permission to the City to cross their right-of-way. He pointed out that the alignment for Andersen Drive requires crossing the right-of-way, so until the NWP Task Force, which includes the Golden Gate Bridge District and the County, etc., grant an easement over the right-of-way, there is a question on just when Andersen Drive can be constructed. He stated that leaves a question as to whether or not that additional capacity is going to be available in a timely fashion. SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 12 SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 13 Mr. Harrison stated his final point is the LOS methodology, which has been discussed at previous meetings. He explained that the existing General Plan and the PPP recommend, and the PPP has used, a Circular 212 method, which is the one that results in a volume to capacity ratio. It estimates the number of critical movements (CMs) at an intersection, and the entire PPP has been based on how many CMs were available at intersections, and the pace of new development has been scaled by the Council to the availability of CMs at intersections. He pointed out that the method which is in the Home Depot analysis uses the Highway Capacity Manual, which is based on the number of seconds of delay which may occur at an intersection. He stated one of the critical questions is: How does the new method relate to General Plan Policy C-27, the one which states the City does not want LOS to fall below mid -LOS E. He pointed out, if you are using Circular 212, it is a relatively easy calculation. He stated the volume to capacity ratio shall not be greater than 0.85. If you are switching to the Highway Capacity Manual method, which is based on delay, the LOS is 25 to 40 seconds, and the mid -point in that range would be 32.55 seconds. He noted that presumably the standard which Policy C-2 refers to would need to be amended if the City is going to change from the old method to the new method. Mr. Harrison asked, what does it mean if you apply the calculations to some actual condi- tions? He stated he has attempted to do this, and will provide the staff with several pages of service calculations. He stated, in summary, that back in 1991 when the Council was doing its PPP determination, they found there were 45 available CMs at the intersection under Circular 212 method. The Highway Capacity Manual does not directly relate to CMs. He stated he has done a hypothetical example of just how many additional trips could be added to the intersection before, and then estimate how many CMs this would add. It turns out that if you have about a 25% increase in traffic at this intersection, CMs under the Highway Capacity Manual method are up by about 300, so while you have limited everything in the past to this 45, if you use the other method it appears that you have lots of room in terms of CMs. He explained that it is 45 available under Circular 212, perhaps 300 or more potential if you switch methods, the point being the method provides you with a very different answer, and if you are going to switch methods it does appear that you should revisit the whole procedure and bring it up to date. He stated that if Home Depot can use any method, he would assume the Council would want all project development applications to be done under the same procedures. As a final point, Mr. Harrison noted that in the staff report to the Council, the impact of the Home Depot project was summarized very quickly and succinctly, saying that the project would increase the delay at the intersection of Francisco and Bellam Boulevards from 33.8 to 37.7 seconds. He noted these are the numbers which are in the Draft Final EIR. They are not the numbers which TJKM has been presenting to the Council, but the staff report again brought them out yesterday. He noted that both of these numbers exceed the mid-range of LOS D, and both of them are greater than 32.55 seconds. He pointed out that if the Council accepts those numbers as they impact the project, they have a clear problem with the General Plan Policy C-2. He stated his assumption is that, in fact, the Council wants to use the TJKM numbers which have come out subsequent to that, and it does raise a question on how TJKM could have supported the CH2M Hill analysis which was in the DEIR when, in fact, their numbers produce quite a different result than the ones which are published in the DEIR. In conclusion, Mr. Harrison asked for clarification as to what is the City's official impact analysis of this project, so that at least his group would know when they are asking questions or making comments, which ones to respond to. He noted there are several issues which do suggest the Council should revisit the PPP process, based on changing from the old method to the new method in calculating LOS. Ms. Karlena Palomares, planning consultant for Jackson's Hardware, stated that in the staff report dated July 28, 1993, relating to the rezoning action before the Council tonight, staff discusses how the proposed Home Depot and Shoreline Center project is consistent with San Rafael's General Plan. She noted that her group has gone on record before the Planning Commission identifying the General Plan policies with which the proposed Home Depot project is not consistent; they also do not agree with staff's response to the points they have raised regarding Home Depot's inconsistency with the General Plan. Ms. Palomares referred to Land Use Policy LU -13(g), and she quoted the statement about allowing retail uses to occupy minor portions of the Light Industrial/ Office districts, provided that intensities and traffic allocation requirements are met and the integrity of the district is maintained. She pointed out that specialty retail use in the Shoreline Center, including Home Depot, constitutes 410 of all the uses in the project site, and as her group has said, that is certainly not a minor portion of the areas zones for LI/O for the project site. Ms. Palomares explained that in their analysis of the General Plan consistency with the Land Use Policy, staff concludes that the Shoreline Center project represents a minor portion of the Light Industrial/Office designation because the specialty use constitutes only 20 of the total acreage designated for LI/O use. She stated it again appears that staff is treating the Home Depot and Shoreline Center project in isolation, as if it is SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 13 SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 14 the only retail specialty use in all of San Rafael that is designated as LI/O use. She noted that, taking the figures used in the staff's rationale, there are approximately 860 acres of land designated as LI/O use in San Rafael. Subtracting the vacant acreage, there is approximately 690 acres of land in San Rafael designated for LI/O use. She stated her interpretation of the staff report would mean the staff did not give exact acreage cor-rectly. She asked, are there not any other specialty uses in the 690 acres of developed LI/O land? She inquired, how does the City know that the threshold for minor specialty retail use has not been exceeded already? How can the City be sure that the approval of the Home Depot project will not push the specialty retail use in the LI/O area over the minor threshold? Ms. Palomares noted that staff does not offer an alternative, however, if the City Council does not concur with the four members of the Planning Commission regarding Home Depot's consistency with this General Plan policy. Staff suggests that the Council can delete the additional specialty retail use on Parcels 2, 3 and 4. She asked, why does staff always recommend taking away from the Shoreline Center rather than making any changes to the Home Depot project? She noted that the City is not required to approve the project, and also has the option to deny the project or reduce the project size. Ms. Palomares pointed out that the Final EIR states that the trip generation rate for Home Depot is higher than specialty retail use based on traffic information derived from a comparable Home Depot project in another vicinity. She asked, why not take the square footage away from the higher traffic generating Home Depot rather than the smaller scale, lower traffic generating specialty retail uses? Ms. Palomares raised an additional point, stating that her group does not believe that the Home Depot project is consistent with General Plan Land Use 1. She noted this policy regarding the timing of development and circulation states that: "New development may be constructed only after needed circulation project funding has been guaranteed, circulation project environmental review has been completed, and findings have been made that the time frame for completion of the needed circulation improvements will not cause LOS D to be exceeded". Ms. Palomares pointed out that in granting the Home Depot PPP status in May, 1991, the Planning Commission and City Council recognized the Andersen Drive Extension as a traffic improvement that would be constructed within a "definable period of time". She noted that staff had stated that the Andersen Drive Extension was fully funded by the Redevelopment Agency, and estimated that construction of the improvement would commence in late 1991. She pointed out that recognition of this traffic improvement created additional critical moves (CMs) to allow Home Depot to be designated a PPP project. She added that staff had recommended that if credit for the Andersen Drive Extension was not given, then the Home Depot project should be dropped from the PPP list. Ms. Palomares stated that we are now learning that funding for the Andersen Drive Extension may be available in 1995; and as mentioned by Mr. Harrison, the project may be complete by 1997 at the earliest. She asked, how can the Home Depot project be consistent with this General Plan policy related to timing of development and circulation, if there is a lapse of three years minimum between the completion of the Home Depot project and the completion of the Andersen Drive Extension? Ms. Palomares mentioned a third point in the July 28th staff report, where staff states, "In giving the Home Depot PPP approval, the City Council found that the project was consistent with the General Plan's circulation policies". She stated her group questioned staff's conclusion regarding the Home Depot project's consistency with the circulation policies of San Rafael's General Plan, pointing out that the City's Resolution adopting the PPP states that the Priority Project determination "Pertains only to City Council determination as to whether a proposed project is consistent with General Plan policies C- 3 and C-7". She noted that there are 28 circulation policies in San Rafael's General Plan, and the Priority Project determination only covers two of them. Ms. Palomares pointed out that during the processing of the Home Depot project, staff and the EIR consultants have relied heavily on the fact that Home Depot was given Priority Project status when discussing General Plan consistency or project merits. She noted that the PPP itself states, "Obtaining a Priority Project determination does not entitle an applicant to City action approving the merits of a proposed development project". Ms. Palomares explained that a fourth point regarding General Plan Policy S-1 states that, "Development shall only be permitted in those areas where potential danger to the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the community can be adequately mitigated". She pointed out that her group has gone on record stating that the proposed development should not be permitted on the subject site since the Shoreline Center EIR finds that the PM -10 levels for project generated traffic from buildout of the Shoreline Center will exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District significance levels and cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. She noted that staff responds by claiming that the General Safety Policy S-1 only refers to geologic, seismic risk, flooding, hazardous materials, disaster preparedness, fire and crime prevention. Staff's position is that the PM -10 concentration is an air quality impact and, therefore, General Safety Policy S-1 does not apply. Ms. Palomares stated that just because the EIR consultant chose to categorize the SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 14 SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 15 PM -10 issue as an air quality issue rather than a human health issue does not validate staff's opinion that General Safety Policy S-1 is inapplicable. She pointed out that, first of all, S-1 is categorized as a General Safety Policy of San Rafael's Health and Safety Element. The EIR states that the exposure to PM -10 could result in adverse health effects, and certainly a general safety policy, especially one that is part of the Health and Safety Element, encompasses the subject of human health. She noted that the Planning Director mentioned the importance of the background discussion in the General Plan in terms of setting forth policy, and she pointed out that in the background section of the Safety Element it discusses Bay Area Air Quality Management District's role to monitor hazardous air pollutants. She stated that PM -10 emissions are categorized as hazardous air pollutants and thus it is a hazardous material. Ms. Palomares concluded by stated that, in order to approve the proposed rezoning, the Council will need to make the findings that the proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan and that the public health, safety and general welfare are served by the proposed rezoning. She urged the Council to take a close look at the General Plan policies and points her group has made before the Commission and before the Council tonight; she believes that in doing so, the Council will determine that the required findings for General Plan consistency cannot be made. Mr. H.C. Jackson stated he has been selling hardware in San Rafael for 40 years, and the question before the Council is not competition but one of fairness, and being equal before the law. He added the Shoreline project is not consistent with the General Plan; never- theless, the City officials came out early in favor of the project before any public hearings. He stated that San Rafael seems to be giving away the City to the developer. The Home Depot project will create traffic, and has the largest toxic problem in Marin. He stated that the evidence shows there is no way the Home Depot project can be approved consistent with existing regulations, and it would not be fair to make exceptions for Home Depot. (There was a brief intermission, after which the Public Hearing resumed.) Mayor Boro called the meeting to order, stating that the Council will now take testimony from the public on the issue before them this evening and, in the interest of time, to limit their remarks to three minutes and to try not to be repetitive. Mary Porter of 134 Woodbine, noted this is the worst economic period since the '30s, and we should go all out for the small businessman. She stated that the City of San Rafael and the County of Marin must not allow local businesses to be steam-rollered and steam - cleaned by very large newcomer corporations. She expressed concern about the large businesses going in to the north of San Rafael and stated that San Rafael can stop this trend toward big business. She stated we have a thoughtful, caring Mayor who takes matters of principle very seriously and is active in the revitalization of the Downtown area. She suggested that perhaps we could have a large marketplace, with many businesses under one roof, similar to the Crystal Palace Market in San Francisco many years ago, with all individual entrepreneurs. Ms. Carol D'Alessio, representing the Marin Conservation League (MCL) read a letter and presented it to the Council, stating that in 1991 MCL, working in cooperation with Marin Audobon, Marin Sierra Club and the Environmental Forum, planned a vision of the future of Marin County and called it Community Marin. She stated they have reviewed this proposed project in light of the recommendations contained in Community Marin, and concluded that the rezoning should not be approved and that the project should be denied. She explained that Community Marin envisions a county which enhances the character of existing commu- nities, makes housing available to people who hold jobs here, makes jobs available to people who live here. It encourages social and economic diversity and protects the natural environment and its resources. She stated the Shoreline project will accomplish none of these goals. Ms. D'Alessio noted that to protect the natural resources of the San Rafael shoreline, projects proposed for the San Quentin landfill site should be carefully designed with sensitivity in mind for the site. She added that it was pointed out in the EIR that all landfills received some amount of hazardous waste before more stringent requirements or regulations were established. Therefore, extra precautions should be taken. She pointed out that this is no ordinary building site, due to its location with wetlands and the Bay surrounding it, but also due to the materials which are underneath it. She noted that Fish and Game has described their minimum standards for protection of wetlands, which is their particular mandate. She stated that those of us who live nearby and are familiar with this area know of its past and present importance for wildlife and therefore urge that some of the upland habitat be included in the rezoning plans as well in order to maintain a diversity of the species which live along our shoreline. Ms. D'Alessio stated there is another reason for zoning a larger habitat area than is presently planned, and explained that if materials compacted under the site settle or erupt in event of earthquake or explosion or heavy rains or whatever reason, there is SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 15 SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 16 space which will be needed for corrective measures. She noted that as presently planned, the only empty space which has no buildings, driveways, parking lots, etc., is the Department of Fish and Game's required minimum habitat strips along the banks. If this has to be dug up during some kind of toxic event, whether it is to install methane gas vents or leachate monitoring wells, all of the habitat will disappear under the construction because there is not a wide enough buffer. She noted that animals simply cannot be expected to leave the area and then return after their area has been dug up. MCL recommends, therefore, a planted buffer of at least 100 feet wide inward from the top of the bank on portions of the site which border the wetlands. She explained these are proposed for Parcels 1 and 3, 6 and part of 5. In the case of Parcel 1, if the Home Depot use is approved for this area, this would require down -sizing of the store or a reconfiguring of parcels to make this parcel larger. Ms. D'Alessio addressed the proposed use of the site, noting that Community Marin recom- mends that new development be focused on existing community centers through infill and reuse. It recommends that the amount of new commercial, retail and industrial development authorized in general plans be reduced, particularly in Novato and East San Rafael. Community Marin also urges that no more regional or subregional shopping centers be approved. She stated that placing a new regional serving retail facility at the former San Quentin landfill site would continue the scattering of auto -dependent land uses, exacerbating an already critical traffic problem in that particular vicinity. Ms. D'Alessio added that MCL has been extremely concerned that some project proponents base their support of the project principally on the sales tax generating potential. Although the prospect of increased sales tax revenues has been received with enthusiasm in the past, recent studies show that commercial development can actually burden existing taxpayers with much of the cost of providing public services to that development. In conclusion, Ms. D'Alessio stated that land use decisions should be based on many factors, including environmental considerations, cost, traffic and community character. She added that the economic return from a project should be only one element of the decision-making process, and it should not override or foreshadow the other considera- tions. She noted that excessive commercial development outside the town centers in Marin has caused traffic congestion, degraded the environment and threatened community character. San Rafael could take an important step in reversing this trend by denying the Shoreline Center project. Mr. Irving "Whitey" Litchfield addressed the Council, noting the number of businesses which used to be in San Rafael and are no longer here, and of all the restaurants only San Rafael Joe's remains. He stated the larger businesses are going broke, both here and in Novato. He stated that Home Depot should not be allowed to come into San Rafael, and the Council is making a decision which will affect all businesses. He noted the problems he has had with his plans for Bermuda Palms, and the parking requirements he was given which he cannot meet. He stated that if the City does not make other businesses which come into San Rafael live up to the same laws he has, he will file an injunction for discrimination, and the City will never issue a use permit to anyone. Mr. Richard Gruber, a San Rafael resident who works at Jackson's Hardware, warned the Council that if this building is built it might blow up because of the toxic waste. He also asked that the Council think about the traffic which will be involved. He stated that San Rafael is a nice place to live, and it will be turned into a big shopping center, like Fremont, and will have no charm left. He asked that San Rafael be kept small and kept so it is livable. He stated these people do not live here and do not belong here - they are a $5 billion place from Atlanta, Georgia. He asked that they be kept out of town. Mr. Chris Craiker, a San Rafael architect, addressed the question of how you decide what is important for a community, which is really what the Council is here to answer. He noted that General Plans have very lofty goals and generate good ideas. It comes back to the people of the community, the renters, the homeowners and consumers, who are the people who make San Rafael great. He stated we need the opportunity, and we need the Council's leadership in order to be able to see our way to getting more stores and more opportuni- ties. He added we need the Council's support to be able to generate competitive prices, larger selection of price, better hours and better access, and one-stop shopping when we can. Mr. Craiker noted that Home Depot does not promise to provide everything and is not a panacea for all shoppers, for all builders and all architects, but they do provide great selection, and they will provide what we in San Rafael need more of, and that is more stores and more opportunities for purchasing. He stated he does not feel Home Depot will eliminate the competition, that those merchants who provide human resources and services are going to survive very well. Existing businesses will flourish if they sharpen their edge and provide what buyers want, and buyers want a variety. He added that the fear of competition or of big box retail is not reason enough to deny a project like this. He SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 16 SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 17 noted the scarcity of "mom and pop" stores, and explained that people go to United Market or Safeway, the larger markets, because they are convenient and have the products we want. He pointed out the fact that theaters are now going toward the five, six or more screens instead of the single screen as in the past, and explained that the people making the decisions on these issues are the purchasers, the consumers, wanting better selection and better products. Mr. Craiker noted that his office is on Third Street between Grand Avenue and Irwin Street, and there are five hair grooming salons, and they are all between 500 and 1,000 square feet. He added that another new one just opened a couple of weeks ago, and it is 2,500 square feet. They are doing very well, and they are cheaper. They are open seven days a week and are open from 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM and they provide service. They are doing well because they are providing what people want here in San Rafael. Mr. Craiker added that this project is exactly what the General Plan was designed to achieve. He stated we cannot go back, but we can provide the continuous vision toward what the General Plan was expected to do. He added we cannot renege on what our commit- ments have been to that General Plan, and he thinks this project is exactly what we expected and what we wanted. He explained that he has had reservations in the past about big box retail design, but he is satisfied that they have good architects. Also, we have one of the best design review processes in the Bay Area. He stated he has gone through it, and he respects the Design Review Board - they are tough. He stated he thinks a very well-designed product is going to emerge, with which we will all be satisfied and happy; it will set the pace for the shoreline which we much need, and he thinks we will be quite satisfied with the project. Mr. Len Nibbi from H&L Properties, 2173-D Francisco Boulevard, stated that they manage buildings in Marin County, six of which are located down the street from the proposed project. He stated that as neighbors of this project, they wholeheartedly support it, and as frequent users of the Rohnert Park Home Depot, they would really prefer to be spending their money in San Rafael. He urged the Council to approve this project. Mr. Anthony Maglio, a Marin County resident, spoke about the toxic waste issue, stating he was raised in the vicinity of the Love Canal area near Niagara Falls, New York. He noted that the toxic area has been examined by various agencies, but when he goes back home, he sees the decay and decimation in that area. He stated we have an obligation to our children and our children's children to think about what could happen when that surface soil is moved about and when foundation pillars are put in for the buildings, when driveway surfaces are created, what potential toxic harm could come about. He asked, are we doing the right thing to disturb a land site which really is not, nor ever will be, as stable as it should be because of its location by the Bay? He suggested perhaps we should let it stay as it is to avoid the future risk of the toxic waste. Mr. Phil Hart, a 15 -year resident of San Rafael, stated this is the fourth one of these hearings which he has attended. He stated he is trying to look at this from the common sense perspective of a citizen of the City. The first overwhelming conclusion he has reached is that the Council is underpaid. Mr. Hart commented that he has heard reference to the big, bad outfit from out of town, and stated people should remember that Macy's was the anchor tenant in San Rafael for a number of years, and they are certainly not a local firm. Regarding taking money out, Macy's took more money out than anyone else ever will. Mr. Hart stated he heard a lot of talk about traffic and cannot help but think that is a "red herring". He pointed out we are not talking about 2,000 trips into the middle of San Rafael, but about the dump away out there on the outer reaches of this City with a major thoroughfare running through it. He noted we had an earthquake here, which took down major arteries in the Bay Area which are still down, but the traffic flowed. He stated that the traffic item on this issue seems to him from a common sense point of view, to be way overblown. He stated people will find a way - if Bellam is gridlocked, people will find a way by going on the highway or going at different times. If Home Depot is as bright as the Home Depot representatives represent, they will open earlier, close later, or something. He stated that private enterprise and the public work things out, and they are doing it all over America. Mr. Hart stated we hear many half truths, and the Council's job is very difficult, finding out where the truth is. He stated that one thing is fortunate, the Council is not setting precedent here. There are over 200 Home Depots operating in America. He stated he would have liked to have seen letters from San Rafael to the mayors of those various cities, and see what their responses were because there must have been similar impacts. He stated the Council must measure the self-interest of the opponents to this project against the broad interests of the other citizens of San Rafael. He asked that the Council think of the welfare of the whole City. Mr. Lee Jordan, an attorney and a resident of Skyview Terrace in San Rafael, stated that in the past he has represented Cal -Pox, the owner of the property for which this project is proposed, and also has in the past represented personally Mr. Martin Bramante, one of SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 17 SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 18 the principals of Cal -Pox. He stated he wants the record to disclose this evening that he is not here in his professional capacity, is not representing anyone, and is not being paid to be here this evening. He pointed out that he has not attended any other hearing of the Planning Commission or the City Council on this project. He stated he is here for one reason. He has been a taxpayer and resident of San Rafael for approximately 40 years, and as he has followed this dispute in the newspapers, he has become increasingly concerned about one issue. That is the fact that the perception he has of the principal thrust of the opposition in this case is that it relates to the question of whether or not the competition posed by this proposed project will have an adverse impact on businesses in San Rafael, and particularly Jackson's Hardware. He stated that, as one citizen, he thinks the City would be making a very serious mistake if they established that as the criterion upon which they base their decision with respect to this application. Mr. Jordan stated that many of us look back with a considerable degree of nostalgia to the days when shopping at a department store in San Rafael meant going to Albert's, or buying toys for children meant patronizing Walt's Toy Store, or going to the movie meant going down to the Rafael Theater. He stated that some of those businesses which are not operat- ing today may have gone out of business because of outside competition, but he does not know that to be true. However, if we assume that to be the fact, there is absolutely nothing the City Council could have done which could have prevented those occurrences. He asked, what would have happened if, in years past, you had established as the basis for their decision as to whether they were going to exclude or permit a new competitive enter- prise to come into this community? He asked, what would have been the result if they had said "No" to the Emporium because they wanted to protect local businesses merchandising similar items. He asked the same question regarding Toys R Us, the Pacific Theaters who operate the complex on Smith Ranch Road. Mr. Jordan stated that if we, as a community, stop trying to maintain a competitive attitude and a competitive position with respect to the other communities surrounding us, we are going to die on the vine. He noted the City has not done that in the past, and if they do that in the future, starting with this project, it would lead us down the wrong road. He added that the ebb and flow of commercial enterprise today do not observe corporate limits or city boundaries, and if the market area which the City of San Rafael is a part of, is now ripe for the entry of an establishment such as Home Depot, it is going to be in this market area and is going to be competing with the businesses here in San Rafael today. He stated that if those businesses are not in a position to match that competition by offering better service, they are going to be disrupted. He noted he frequently patronizes Jackson Hardware. However, with regard to the disruption of lives and businesses, we are more than recompensed for that fact by the fact that overall, the system in which we exist and have supported, brings greater benefits to us if we let the free enterprise system work. Mr. Jordan stated it would be a very serious mistake for this City at this point to try to start going down the path of becoming a referee among competing enterprises. He added that, with all due respect, the City does not have the expertise to do that. Governmental entities with much bigger staffs, with much greater expertise in the field of economics, have tried to do so and more often than not, they have failed. He stated he thinks this application should be treated as the City has treated all similar applications in the past. They should apply to this application the established planning policies that govern the General Plan, the Constitution of the government of this City. He recommended letting it stand or fall on the basis that the City has applied to prior applications for major projects. It has served the City well at this point, and should the City begin to depart from this process, and that approach to applications of this kind, he feels the City will suffer in the long run. Mr. Kim Taylor, a San Rafael resident and purchasing agent for Jackson's Hardware, noted that the proponents of the project stated that by denying this project's application, the Council would be forcing the residents of San Rafael to pay higher prices for hardware and home improvement goods, and they also inferred that there would remain an attitude of non - competitiveness in the marketplace here in Marin. He noted that his job entails, to a very large degree, knowing what the competition is doing. He stated that when he buys hand tools, for instance, for Jackson's, he does not arbitrarily set the price he thinks people will pay. He finds out what stores like Home Depot, Friedman's, Yard Birds, Orchard Supply, Rafael Lumber and many others are selling them for. He stated he cannot understand the argument that there is no competition here in the marketplace. He is always aware of what the competition is charging, and many times Jackson's is lower than the others. He stated that it is not the Council's job to determine that the marketplace is not competitive and therefore we need to bring in this retailer to serve the citizens of San Rafael. He stated he does not believe that there have been any exhaustive price studies presented to the Council as a body of evidence which would indicate that the market is not competitive. Mr. Taylor stated he moved here from the East Bay in an area where there are many enormous monolithic cement blocks of warehouses, and he does not want that to happen in San Rafael. He stated this is a unique community and if it is the Council's job to evaluate the needs SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 18 SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 19 of the community, then they should do so. He stated that if they are going to bring this place in because the staff and the proponents are telling the Council that it is going to fatten our purse, then the Council should at least examine the whole thing across the board so it is fair to everybody, and not base it on an economic study which picks holes in somebody else's report. He stated if this is to be examined on the General Plan issues, then it should be done, and the playing board should be fair and the record should show that there is competition here. Mr. Chet Peterson stated that from what he read in the papers, he felt something is being taken away from him. He noted he was a fighter pilot in World War II, and they all felt they were fighting for freedom in America. He stated that reading the paper, he felt that perhaps his freedom was being taken away from him, that his freedom of choice, the freedom of business coming in here to the area, those were being taken away. He wanted to come as a private citizen to tell the Council how he felt. Mr. Ed Kuykendall stated he is a local builder, developer, commercial builder in Marin County, and a long-time resident of San Rafael. He stated that because of his business, he buys great quantities of hardware per month. He shops at Jackson's, Yard Birds, Rafael Lumber, Golden State Lumber and Jay Tee Supply. He stated he is a total believer in the free enterprise system. He does go to Rohnert Park to shop at Home Depot. He added he feels it is a shame that Costco was not allowed to open in San Rafael and forced to go to Novato, and it would be a shame if Home Depot were not allowed to open here. He explained about the various items he buys from the different building supply firms because of their specialties. He noted that the windows he can buy at Dotto Glass he cannot buy at Home Depot because they are a completely different type of outlet. He stated that Jackson's employees have told him that 900 of their customers are trade customers, and he doubts very much whether that percentage is true for Home Depot. Mr. Kuykendall stated he believes this property is zoned correctly for the use, and it fits our Master Plan. He added it has been studied thoroughly, and San Rafael needs this project. He does not believe it will affect the downtown area. The highways certainly can serve it and it will draw from the entire county, as well as from the East Bay. He stated he is very much in favor of this project. Mr. Mike Schmidt stated that, as he told the Planning Commission, if Home Depot came here he would not shop there, because he does not particularly like it. He would shop at Jackson's or some of the other small stores because the service at Home Depot does not meet his ideas of service. He stated that what he is fearful of, he would hate to see this Council establish a new policy that from here on out they are going to be looking at who is coming in rather than why they should use the site which they are coming to. He stated that would be an entirely new policy for the City and he would hate to see that happen. He added there are plenty of things to look at, to decide whether this store comes to this community. He noted there are many areas, and he hopes that when this hearing is closed and all talk is over with, and the Council really looks at the issues, the Council does not use a new policy. He hopes they use the old tried and true reasons to deny or approve this project. Mr. Larry McFadden, a Fairfax resident, with business interests and property in San Rafael, stated that the real question is that life has changed for all of our jurisdictions, given the tax revenue situations. He does not necessarily think the question is competition, or that this project is Home Depot. It is because of the size and the sheer volume of this project. He stated we are being forced as communities to make choices of what we want, not how much. It all goes back to revenue. Mr. McFadden discussed the current economic situation and the necessity for retaining essential services in view of the shrinking revenue base. He pointed out the cost in traffic improvements which a project of this size would cause, as well as environmental degradation. He asked the Council, do they have the money to bear that cost, and is the money which will be brought in, in sales tax dollars, sufficient to offset the expenses to this jurisdiction which will be caused by this project. Mr. McFadden stated he agrees with what was said earlier, that it would be grossly unfair to penalize not only the consumers but anybody else by keeping it out of business just to protect the ones who are here. It is also grossly unfair to bring in a business on the back of essential services and tax increases to support their coming in. He called it a two -horned dilemma. He noted that we are separated from other markets by geographical barriers on three sides, and have a Home Depot directly to the North of us. Given the amount of available buildable space in this area, he wonders how a business of that size can sustain itself in our market. He noted that we have been hearing about competition, but nothing about tax revenues, and asked what will happen if they fail. He pointed out it would be difficult to rent a 100 some thousand square foot commercial facility. Mr. McFadden noted that both sides on this issue have presented very fine arguments, but the question is, can the City afford this project? Has the City surplus funds to be able to afford anything which is going to go wrong on a project of this scale? He suggested that sales tax revenues are not an investment or loan against the future. He also SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 19 SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 20 questioned why there has not been a down -sized plan, which he thinks was asked for. Perhaps that would be more palatable. In conclusion, Mr. McFadden asked the Council to consider the following points: What will it cost us, this jurisdiction, in terms of money, in terms of convenience, in terms of traffic, and in terms of environmental issues? He stated he thinks the economic and job fallout from entry into the community will be negative. He added he thinks that the Council will succeed in making the Downtown Plan basically a sham. Also, given the stagnant housing market which will probably remain unchanged, he does not think you can rule out the possibility of market abandonment and Home Depot moving north. Mr. McFadden stated, in closing, that he appreciates that the Council has a very difficult decision to make. He added that in economic, political and social perspective, he thinks that the project could only be supported if it were an expanding, growing and healthy housing or building economy. He asked that the Council consider that the citizens of all of the jurisdictions in the County value restricted growth, open space, rural setting, lack of traffic, and our environment. Mr. Lou Rago, of 33 Moncada, San Rafael, stated he cannot speak on the environmental issues or the traffic issues, but as a builder/developer he would like to speak on the competitive aspect. He stated that in the past 12 months he has spent approximately $95,000 at Jackson's Hardware, and about $50,000 at Home Depot. Every time he goes up to Home Depot he sees people from Marin County - other local builders and homeowners - and it galls him as a resident of San Rafael to think that the notion that Home Depot might be disruptive to local businesses is a priority over some of the needs of the community. He stated that if Home Depot comes into the community he will probably spend the same amount of money which he did last year at Jackson's again next year because the services and products are what he is looking for. He added that he also shops at other places and he does not feel it is going to be a panacea for people using some of the local businesses to retreat from them. Their purchases will still bring tax dollars into San Rafael. Mr. Rago noted the previous speaker questioned whether we can afford to have this project, and as a local resident he questions whether we can afford not to have it. He noted we have lost other retailers in the past, and he thinks the theory of keeping large retailers out of the downtown area has not helped local businesses thrive, in some cases. They still have their problems. He stated the world is changing and we have to address that change in as prudent a way as we can, but not to neglect the responsibility we have to the residents of the area. Mr. John Rickards stated he is a native of Marin and was raised in San Rafael. He has seen many changes over the years in San Rafael, and presently lives in Tiburon. He has a business in San Rafael, and owns property here. He is opposed to Home Depot and Shoreline Center for several reasons. His concerns are basically traffic and the concept of additional tax revenue to the City. He quoted a news release from the Independent -Journal which he stated was written by an individual who identified himself as being from San Rafael but who actually lives in Mill Valley. He quoted from the article: "Another important element is the anticipation of a 30% customer draw from the East Bay, Contra Costa County area. This will help relieve local arterial roads and will not overwhelm Highway 580 or local arterial roads. Any time we can steal Contra Costa customer dollars in taxes, while not overwhelming our streets and the infrastructure, I'm all for that". Mr. Richards stated it is obvious that the writer of this did not know what he was talking about, because there is no way you are going to draw 300 of the customers from Contra Costa County or the East Bay. He pointed out that Home Depot has already mentioned tonight an earlier store in Vallejo and another one on the border between Richmond and El Cerrito. He stated this article shows that some of the people who support Home Depot have not done their homework, and he hopes that the Council will not be misled and will vote against this application. Mr. David Schoenbrun, a fan of the Countywide Planning Agency which uses these chambers, mentioned a regional perspective, which we have not heard tonight, and asked that the Council look at the concern about the loss of this project to another jurisdiction within this county. He stated that something which has not come up in these discussions about this project, is to utilize our interjurisdictional planning through the Countywide Planning Agency to define what each of our communities wants in terms of retaining its community character. He stated that, as others have said tonight, big box retail is destructive to the fine-grained community character which we have here, and to introduce a big box is a form of making our County look like everywhere else. Mr. Schoenbrun stated that through action of the Countywide Planning Agency it would be entirely possible to have an agreement that jurisdictions would agree not to approve further big box projects, so as to guarantee that you do not find yourself in the situation identified in Table 2 of the Economic Analysis where you lose the local sales tax revenues from local businesses as well as seeing that those revenues go to another jurisdiction within this County. He stated that, to whatever degree the Council fears that project may go somewhere else within the County, that they put this issue before the Countywide Planning Agency. He stated he feels confident that they could get an agreement SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 20 SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 21 with all of the other jurisdictions, that this is simply not an appropriate use for our County. Mr. Schoenbrun noted that this is an entirely auto -dependent development, one with no transit access, which means that certainly the employees, everyone who goes to that site, is going to have to get in a car to get there. He stated this goes against what the Council is trying to do, and goes against all contemporary planning of being an aggressive kind of plan which is the worst kind of suburban sprawl. He urged that the Council think about good land use, and moving San Rafael into the future in ways which are transit - dependent, and as environmentally responsible and friendly as possible, and this is not in that direction. Mr. Ron Leach, who has a business in San Rafael and lives in Novato, stated he is against the Home Depot and the Shoreline Center, and noted that some people have said that if Home Depot does not locate here they will go to Novato. He pointed out the counsel for Home Depot had said they have had a rough time here in San Rafael, but if they go before the Novato City Council, which is a no -growth Council, they will find it much worse. He noted they are not the same City Council which approved the Hahn Center. Mr. Leach stated that the citizens of San Rafael look to the City Council as leaders, and they want the Council to recognize the obligation they have to their constituency, which also involves the business community. He noted that someone said the business community supports 45% of the tax burden in San Rafael, so it is not just the people who live in the homes in San Rafael, it is also the business community which is supporting San Rafael by its sales tax revenue. He added that the citizens also want the Council to recognize their obligation to protect them from the ambitions of multi -billion dollar corporations who want to take over the town. He stated that if Home Depot comes here, the entire character of San Rafael will be changed. It will be at the economic mercy of a corporate giant which is headquartered in Atlanta, which will take the money and leave the area with that money. Mr. Leach stated he has talked about this project with a number of people in various organizations, and the question has been raised about where Home Depot will buy their insurance, their accounting services, their vehicles and office equipment and supplies. He noted he and his associates buy theirs locally, but he doubts that they will use local services in San Rafael like local businesses do. Mr. Leach stated he hopes the Council will have the courage to say "No" to this. Also, if Home Depot tries to get into Novato, he hopes those present tonight will join with him to fight them in Novato. He stated we need to see the kind of leadership in San Rafael that they hope will come up in Novato, and hopes that the City Council does not sell the business community out for $129,000 in revenue. Mr. Jim Sasse, a San Rafael resident, thanked Planning Commissioners Phillips and Starkweather for voting in favor of our reasonable concerns. He stated that the environmental melting pot beneath the proposed building site, where chemical combinations which may occur in the future will rival DuPont's research labs, combined with earthquake possibilities, with no possible containment, is certainly not a good choice for Home Depot or any other large building as a foundation. He stated that the City staff is attempting to stretch the word "mitigation" into some kind of bubble gum where even the General Plan has to be changed beyond belief. He added he thinks it would be a good idea for one member of the City Council to attend the meetings of the Planning Commission when there is as much opposition to an issue as this, in future project analysis. He asked the Council to consider some other building site for such a massive project. Mr. Michael Rodgers stated he is a third generation Marinite, a San Rafael resident and a 20 -year veteran in the retail hardware industry, and is speaking tonight against the Home Depot and the Shoreline Center. He noted everyone is talking about free competition but he feels we should be talking about fair competition. He stated that super -powered corporate giants like Home Depot should be able to come into a community and prove how they operate fairly; however, from actual experience, that is not the case. He showed copies of identically designed advertising brochures published by Home Depot within the last few months, from the Vallejo -Fairfield, Rohnert Park, San Carlos and Colma stores, and one from their new location in Carmichael near Sacramento. He noted that everything in the brochures is exactly the same, except for one thing - the prices are lower in Rohnert Park than they are in Vallejo -Fairfield, and the prices in Vallejo -Fairfield are lower than in Colma or San Carlos, and the prices in Colma/San Carlos are substantially higher than at the store in Carmichael by as much as 28%. He gave actual examples of items and their prices in the various stores. He explained that the prices in Colma/San Carlos are higher because they are older stores and already have a foothold in their areas and the advantage to beat down the competition. In Carmichael, as in Rohnert Park, they are relatively new to these communities and are still in the process of driving out the competing businesses. Mr. Rodgers noted that is exactly what happened here in Marin with the big oil companies. SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 21 SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 22 We pay more for gasoline because the big oil companies control the market and no one can compete with them to hold the pricing policies fair. He stated perhaps it is too late to do anything about the big oil companies, but it is not too late for the City Council to do something about preventing the same thing happening here with Home Depot. Mrs. Barbara Salzman, representing the Marin Audubon Society, stated they oppose the project as applied for and urged the Council to deny the application for rezoning. She stated that, as already mentioned by the representative for MCL, Marin Audubon and the other organizations have opposed additional shopping centers in Marin County, and particularly oppose this one because of its size and the many impacts, and the fact that it would impact the wetlands and wildlife habitat and endangered species. She stated if the Council is inclined to approve something on this site, they have no choice but to recommend the reduced project. Mrs. Salzman noted that the EIR (Environmental Impact Report) was very vague about the reduced project, and needs to be more specific. She stated it is not clear, except that it would be a general reduction and she does not know what that would mean in terms of wildlife. She stated it would need to assure that there is at least 100 -foot buffer as measured from the top of the bank inland, around the whole project site. She noted the buffers, as proposed, range from 35 feet to about 70, as she calculates them, and she is not including in that any calculations for parking lots and that sort of thing. She stated she is including the road because she is not sure how wide the road is, but the parking lot has absolutely no value for wildlife. Therefore, the parking lot should not be included as part of the buffer, since it is an impacting use. She noted the buffer should be vegetated with native species and should have an adequate fence as well as berms. She noted that State Fish and Game tend to take the minimum approach regarding buffers, and there do not seem to be any firm guidelines. She added that, unfortunately, they are often on the other side from the rest of the environmental community. Mrs. Salzman stated she wants to ensure that the Council adequately addresses the water quality issues. She noted the staff report includes the Storm Water Management Program chapter. She stated she is going to try to get hold of the whole document. She noted that one of the activities which is supposed to be addressed is provision for construction and land development activities during the planning phase, which is where we are right now. She stated it does not make sense to put off addressing water quality issues for some future time when a program or plan is developed, and we do not know when that will be. She stated this is a draft plan, and she does not think it has had any public review or review by any of the jurisdictions in the County; therefore, she stated she does not see how we can say that this is going to be approved even in the near future. Also, if a developer is proposing to build a project which is going to reduce water quality or have other impacts, they should be responsible to mitigate those impacts. Even if they are only, as the staff report says, 9.2% of the drainage, you have to start somewhere, and we should be starting. She recommended strongly that this issue not be put off to some future time. In conclusion, Mrs. Salzman said they again urge the Council to consider a reduced project. They are especially concerned about the Canalways site, about which the City is also concerned. She noted that site has extensive wildlife uses and endangered species, and she urged it be protected, as well as the other adjacent habitats. Mayor Boro noted, for the benefit of the audience, that we have gone a little over 11-� hours and it is almost 11 o'clock. He stated he would like to cut off public testimony so the Council can get on with their questions and deliberations. He asked who would like to speak, who would address anything which we have not heard before. Mr. Mike Machanich stated that he and his family have lived in San Rafael since 1960. He noted this is his fourth meeting listening to these debates. He stated that rather than speak against Shoreline Center or against Jackson's, he is speaking for San Rafael. He announced that 21,� weeks ago the City of Palmdale became the 11th city in this State to default on its Municipal Bonds, and that is very scary. He noted we have a financial, fiscal crisis which is not just limited to San Rafael, but is really racking the State of California. He stated the issues seem pretty basic to him: The landowner wants to lease his land. Home Depot wants to build a store. Mr. Jackson has built a business and would like to preserve the sales price to the ESOP, the employees would like to maintain the value of their stock in that ESOP plan. Mr. Machanich stated that one thing which has not been introduced in these proceedings is that he supports Shoreline Park, not just the Home Depot. He stated that once Home Depot goes into that site, if we can ever resolve the issue as a City about the interchange which should be put out in that area, we will be able to build out that other 28 acres of land. He stated that is not limited to $129,000 or $300,000 worth of tax revenues which will be available to the City. It will be tax revenues available from the build -out of 38 acres of land. He stated he has not heard that issue brought up and it is something he hopes the Council will consider. Mr. Machanich noted that businesses are moving out of California not so much because of the State taxes and the Workers Compensation problems, SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 22 SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 23 but because of the lengthy permit process. Mr. Robert Smith, a resident of Ignacio who works and shops in San Rafael, spoke in opposition to the Home Depot project. He stated he has heard tonight that Home Depot should be allowed to move into San Rafael because they are no different than any other major store, but that is not true. He stated that compared with Costco, Safeway and Macy's, these stores are "small potatoes". He stated that Home Depot is the biggest of the big box retailers, with sales of around a billion a year. They can and would wipe out dozens of businesses covering a wide range of goods and services, and it would completely change the style and character of San Rafael. He added that their sole aim is to dominate every facet of the construction and home improvement sales, regardless of impact on the cities and towns they enter. He stated the free competition is one thing, but elimination of dozens of businesses and an entire way of life is something else. He asked that the Council not let this happen. Dr. John Starkweather, member of the Planning Commission, stated that as a member of the Commission he voted against the rezoning proposal. He explained that he was trying to think in the form of long-range planning. His conscience centered on what he sees as the inappropriate location of the first element of a new shopping center called Shoreline Center. He disagrees with the staff because, in his opinion, it does not fit within the General Plan vision of the Light Industrial/Office land use designation for this area and the specific General Plan policies which relate to East San Rafael, which emphasize a limited level of retail and commercial service to serve local needs. He noted that, whereas there was a previously considered auto center in East San Rafael which in his opinion was reasonable and a move to consolidate and usefully organize shopping for cars, this proposal further scatters the possibility of comparison shopping and creates a new set of congestive traffic routes in an area that already has problems of traffic capacity. Dr. Starkweather explained that this proposal is the first phase of the development of a regional shopping center called Shoreline Center, and he believes that the Council should be very hesitant to develop another decentralized retail center. He stated that the proposed development agreement makes it clear that this is really the goal, and he does not think Home Depot wants to be there alone for very long. He added it seems to him that the zone change proposal is indeed a major change in the General Plan expectations for this area. Mr. William Loskutoff of Jackson's Hardware stated that he felt he must address a couple of issues which were brought up. He noted that one of the speakers had brought up the cost that possibly the developer should participate in, in the Urban Runoff Program. He stated that is a cost we should all look at. He noted there has been talk about projected traffic improvements, and he would like to know what these improvements would cost in today's dollars. He detailed the cost of various highway construction projects in Southern California and in Los Gatos, which were designed in 1950, but are just now being constructed, with a considerable escalation in cost since that time. He asked, if the Andersen Drive project is five years away, what is it going to cost when it is built? He stated he lives in San Rafael, and would like to know the figures, and he thinks it is the Council's responsibility to find out. He added it is part of our responsibility in coming to a decision on this project to have those numbers brought to us. Mr. Loskutoff stated he thinks the Council agrees with everyone on both sides, that one of the things the Council needs to do is to look at this project as they have looked at every other project, and when they do that they have to look at the General Plan and make sure it fits in with it. He asked that they do not change the General Plan to fit the project, but get the project to fit our General Plan. Mayor Boro closed the Public Hearing, and declared a brief recess. Mayor Boro reconvened the meeting, and asked City Attorney Ragghianti to explain to the Council and the public the role of the Council as far as determining consistency and the latitude they have, etc., with regard to the General Plan. City Attorney Ragghianti stated he thinks the first question which needs to be addressed is, are there any standards which are required by law to be taken into account in assessing the Council's determination to approve or deny the rezoning which is before them. Clearly there are standards and they are set forth in our Ordinance, in Chapter 14, and they speak in terms of consistency. In that portion of the Zoning Ordinance it talks about the findings that need to be made for rezoning, it talks about a finding that the Council must make that the project is consistent in principle with the General Plan. Mr. Ragghianti noted that those words are used precisely, and other portions of that chapter talk about simply consistency. He noted that, perhaps most ironically of all, State planning law exempts charter cities from making consistency findings in zoning matters, and so we are technically exempt from making any consistency findings except for the fact that our Zoning Ordinance has a provision written into it which says that we should, and therefore we do, and we always have and we always will, unless we change it. So, the consistency finding that is necessary to be made is set forth and it says "consistency in SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 23 SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 24 principle". Mr. Ragghianti questioned, what is that consistency? It is certainly not some sort of arithmetical calculus or mirror image consistency that is necessary. The law provides that a project is consistent with a General Plan if, after you consider all of its components and its aspects, it is in your opinion going to further the objectives and policies of the General Plan and not obstruct the attainment of those objectives. Mr. Ragghianti stated that, put another way, consistency exists under this test when you have adopted a Plan, as we have here, and the land use which you approve is found by you to be compatible with the objectives, with the policies, with the general land uses and programs which are specified in the Plan. Most importantly, whether or not a particular project here, the rezoning which is before the Council, is consistent with the General Plan is left up to the Council's judgment, not anyone else's judgment, not the Planning Commission's judgment, but the City Council's judgment. Mr. Ragghianti stated this is a legislative decision which the Council is about to make and it is their decision solely to make. Further, importantly, court decisions decided in California are fairly clear, to the extent that the law can be said to be fairly clear at all, that such a decision by the Council will not be set aside unless it is determined that the Council acted in an arbitrary fashion or without any evidentiary support for their finding or unless they failed to follow the proper procedures, such as a failure to give notice, which he does not believe has happened here. Mr. Ragghianti summarized by stating that the ultimate decision regarding consistency is legislative, but it does require some factual determinations by the Council, and the courts have determined, in their decisions, to defer to the Council's interpretation of their own General Plan. He stated it is the Council who will make a decision as to whether this project is consistent on the basis of the evidence that they have heard, the evidence which has been submitted to them orally, the documents which have been submitted to them and placed on the record, letters which have been received, whatever other information has been provided by staff or by members of the public. The courts have determined to defer to City Councils' interpretation of the Plan and factual findings unless, based on the evidence which was presented to a City Council, they find that a reasonable person could not have reached the same conclusion. So, the Council is asked to make a determination as to whether this particular project as proposed is consistent with our General Plan, and the Council must make that decision on the basis of the evidence which is before them. Mr. Ragghianti concluded by stating that one of the speakers wanted to know whether it was the Council's job to evaluate the needs of the community. He stated it is the Council's job to do that, and it is the Council's duty to do that, and also it is their charge to do that, in connection with the action which is before them tonight. Therefore, two findings are necessary. One is consistency with the General Plan, and the other one has to do with a finding that the proposed project serves the public welfare. That also is determined by the City Council in their legislative capacity. Mayor Boro thanked Mr. Ragghianti, and asked Planning Director Pendoley if there are other items which have come up which he would like to address. Mr. Pendoley noted that staff has recommended to the Council that the most fundamental issue is General Plan consistency, and you are given that discretion under the law, as Mr. Ragghianti has described. Mr. Pendoley explained that staff has highlighted several policies as being fundamental in considering this project, and speakers opposed to the project have cited the same policies. He stated he has become concerned, because the most fundamental policy has not been quoted correctly. He explained that the graphic which was presented by Mr. Bianchi quotes the General Plan land use designation, particularly as it relates to LU -13(g), as saying that it allows minor specialty retail use in Light Industrial/Office districts. That is not what it says. What it says is shown on the overhead: LU -13(g) says, "Specialty retail uses may be allowed to occupy minor portions of the Light Industrial/Office District". Mr. Pendoley stated that it is clear that that language is referring to the Light Industrial/Office land use designation on the City's General Plan. It would not make any sense in any other way. If it referred to a zoning district, for example, it would be contradicting itself because it says as long as it is consistent with the FAR (Floor Area Ratio) regulations, which are the intensity regulations for the district, it is OK, it will be a minor portion of the land use designation City-wide. Mr. Pendoley illustrated by showing a colored General Plan map, and noting that the color gray designates Light Industrial/Office. He noted there are two concentrations of this designation in San Rafael, one in the East San Rafael area, as shown on this map. He noted that the darker blue represents the 11 acres which is the proposed Home Depot site within the Shoreline Business Center Master Plan. Graphically, you can see that it is a minor portion of the Light Industrial/Office District in East San Rafael. He then showed a perspective on the overhead which showed the other area of Light Industrial/Office designation in the General Plan, up in the Northgate area, a somewhat smaller area than that in East San Rafael. He explained that when you aggregate this area with East San Rafael area and compare it to the 17 acres which are proposed for the Shoreline Business Park, it represents the percent of the Light Industrial/Office designation City-wide. He SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 24 SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 25 stated that staff would recommend to the Council that it is within their discretion to interpret 20 as a minor portion. Mr. Pendoley stated that the second policy issue has to do with ESR -8, which was quoted as relating to limited retail service uses. He stated staff's recommendation to the Council is that the policy supports this application. This policy reflects very directly the discussion in the background sections of the land use portion of the General Plan which staff quoted earlier this evening, and of which the Councilmembers have copies. He noted it talked about the need to preserve sites for home improvement and building material sales, as well as for automobile sales. It says very specifically that in East San Rafael Light Industrial/Office areas may be considered on a case -by case basis. The object is to preserve the space to allow for that type of economic development. He noted this policy further states that. Mr. Pendoley noted that a series of policies were cited as allegedly disallowing this type of use in a Light Industrial/Office District. Staff's recommendation to the Council is that they simply are not applicable. For example, LU -41, again cited in the exhibits presented by Mr. Bianchi, does what it says it does. It relates to existing commercial areas. This 44 acres is not an existing commercial area, but is a vacant area. This policy has to do with enhancing and maintaining existing developed areas, and this is not one. Similarly with LU -38, it has to do with the promotion of convenience shopping. This proposal is not a convenience shopping proposal. The land use designation does not talk about convenience shopping, other than for convenience of the existing business or industrial and office uses within the District. Again, that goes back to LU -13(g). Mr. Pendoley explained that the Council, in exercising their discretion to interpret the General Plan, noting the State does not envision nor does the General Plan envision, that the Council must make a finding that the project is consistent with every single General Plan policy. It is to be consistent with relevant policies. For example, this policy is not consistent with the series of General Plan policies which talk about preservation of trees, but that is because there are no trees on this site. That analogy applies directly to the issue of convenience shopping, to the issue of protecting existing commercial areas raised by LU -39 and 41. Mr. Pendoley stated he has a final point regarding General Plan consistency, and that is the Zoning Ordinance which was adopted a year ago next week. In the Zoning Ordinance the Council came up with a very specific definition of specialty retail. The term shows up frequently in General Plan policies which relate to this property. He explained that specialty retail is defined in the Zoning Ordinance, after extensive public hearings, as regions serving retail that is high tax generating, that entails over 50,000 square feet of building area. Mr. Pendoley stated that the policies are internally consistent, are well integrated and mutually supporting to promote the Economic Development policy, and protecting and enhancing the revenue base. Councilmember Cohen stated he would like to continue to focus on the issue of General Plan consistency and, so the record is clear, he would like to have staff respond to a couple of other issues which were raised in testimony tonight. First would be a couple of points about the Andersen Drive Extension, Mr. Harrison's comment that the PPP approval assumed the Andersen Drive Extension would be complete, and Ms. Palomares' comment that the Andersen Drive Extension was defined and scheduled for fall of '91, and that without Andersen Drive we could not have approved the PPP recommendation for Home Depot and cannot approve it without a different time frame for Andersen Drive. He stated he had noted that as LU -1, but is not sure that is correct. Mr. Pendoley responded that it is LU -1, but it is stated in more detail in General Plan Policy C-3 in the circulation element. Exactly what C-3 says is that the project must be funded, the environmental review process must have been completed, and the project must be scheduled for completion within a definite period of time before construction can begin. Not before you can act on the project, not before you can consider the project, but before construction can begin. That means, before excavation can begin, before cement can be poured. Mr. Pendoley explained that when this was last considered in the PPP, the EIR was in circulation and a schedule had been laid out. The project was put on hold to do additional environmental review. Mr. Pendoley noted that the Final EIR is due to be released shortly. Staff can recommend to the Council that construction will not begin before final action has been taken on the EIR, which will be within a number of months. He pointed out that the Council is not acting to approve the actual construction project tonight, but are only approving the zoning, and if they get to the point where the Council and/or the Planning Commission are considering the use permit and the design review, it will be appropriate for the Council to put a condition on the actual construction approvals to say that construction cannot begin until the EIR on Andersen Drive has been completed. Mr. Pendoley pointed out that the project is funded, and Principal Planner Delimont will give the Council details on the funding. It has been funded with Redevelopment funds which are available and more recently we were informed that CalTrans funds will become SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 25 SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 26 available which we can use in lieu of Redevelopment funds. Mr. Pendoley stated that if, and when, the Council considers construction approvals, staff can give them the estimated schedule for completion and can make findings on it. However, staff anticipates construction to begin in Fiscal Year 1995/96. Councilmember Cohen stated he realizes that the PM -10 emissions issue procedure was treated in the EIR, but since it was raised again tonight by Ms. Palomares, he would like staff's response to the issue that the allegation is inconsistent with Policy S-1. Principal Planner Delimont responded that because this policy is in the Safety Element, staff thinks it is being inappropriately quoted here to begin with. She explained that the safety elements, under State Law, deal with geologic, seismic risks, flooding, hazardous materials, disaster preparedness and fire and crime prevention, and PM -10 is really an air quality issue. She noted that exceedence of PM -10 levels for this project will occur from full build -out from the Shoreline Center, and that is from auto emissions. That is something for which there is no mitigation measure other than better exhaust controls on cars. She added that any large project would have that impact in San Rafael, and we have very few occasions where air quality is exceeded. PM -10 is a common occurrence in the Bay Area, because whenever you have a large congregation of autos you are going to have PM -10 to exceedence levels. In this particular case, it is not going to happen with Home Depot. It will potentially happen with the full build -out of the site, and then it will be on a rare occasion when we have those exceedence levels. So, from staff's standpoint it is an air quality issue and not a safety issue. Councilmember Cohen asked for a clarification on an issue which Mrs. Salzman raised at last night's meeting and about which he has expressed concern. That is the issue about run-off, and the discussion about establishing a baseline and monitoring. He would assume, based on staff's response about LU -1 and C-3, that the Council would be able to appropriately address those concerns at the time of actual project review and use permit and environmental design. He asked is that correct? Mr. Pendoley stated that is correct, and he could elaborate more if he would like it. Councilmember Cohen responded he would like to take the opportunity to explore those concerns a little further and perhaps turn our response to those issues which have been raised. He stated he wants to make sure he will have the opportunity to do that at the appropriate time, but it will not be necessary tonight, so long as the Council is not precluded from doing it at a later date. Councilmember Breiner stated she wanted to bring up something for the record, rather than stating it as a question. She stated she was reminded by one of the speakers tonight, and would hope that in the future if this proceeds to a use permit stage that there would be built into some of the requirements that settlement monitoring every four or five years for such a building would occur and would be reported to the Council. That would be one more check on the safety and the geoseismic work, to see if the process is working properly. She pointed out that if you have the initial building going in and it starts settling faster than expected, you will know that for any future buildings you will need to do something different. Mr. Pendoley responded, that is certainly within the Council's discretion, particularly on the design review permit. Councilmember Thayer noted that Ms. Palomares raised the question about this project having been given an unwarranted extension of the PPP, which should be viable for only a year or two. Councilmember Thayer stated she believes that the Council's last decision on that was in 1991. Mr. Pendoley responded, that is correct. He explained that part of the PPP is a creature of the General Plan Policy C-7. That policy says that when you have projects competing for traffic capacity, that is, that you have a series of projects under application and the cumulative effect of those projects - or if all those projects were to be approved - would cause mid -D to be exceeded. In that event, you must have a process in effect to have a competition in which you can evaluate which projects do the most to implement your goals for affordable housing, high tax generation, and particular neighborhood needs. He stated that since 1991, largely due to the recession, we have not had competing applications. We have had no one approach us and make application or even inquiry about an application for a project which would generate an additional critical move (CM) and would thus create the need for competition. This project is, therefore, consistent with the relevant policies of C-2, C-3 and C-4, which have to do with LOS (levels of service), and C-7. PPP is basically not applicable. Councilmember Thayer noted that had there been other projects they would have had to compete and after a period of time recompete. Mr. Pendoley agreed, we would have been required to hold a competition. Councilmember Shippey stated he is troubled, since the Council has heard, and he has heard privately as well, that the City is requiring at least a couple of owners to limit their hours of operation. These are owners of businesses in East San Rafael, and they are asked to limit their hours because of peak traffic hours, and presumably it is because of the traffic considerations there. He stated that even if we do not have a PPP, it sounds to him like we have a "de facto" PPP. If we are awarding traffic to this traffic -generating site, and yet we have other businesses which cannot enjoy full use of their businesses right now, it seems as if we are, in fact, awarding some PPP to the present applicant. SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 26 SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 27 Mr. Pendoley responded there are two cases he knows of. He will explain about one, and Ms. Delimont will explain about the other. One of the cases is Marin Sanitary. They have a project approval which predates the General Plan, but which does limit their hours of operation. It says, in effect, they cannot have incoming traffic between 4 and 6. That predates both the General Plan and the PPP but, nevertheless, it was a recognition of traffic capacity problems of Bellam Boulevard. He noted it is also a condition which happens to work very well, given the business pattern of a waste disposal operation. Ms. Delimont stated she is aware of two other cases. One is the storage facility, and the gentleman testified at the public hearing here. He had a site already developed out, and used up its trips. He wanted to add additional storage units to it and came before the Planning Commission and then ultimately the City Council. Staff had recommended against granting his expansion because of the circulation policies, but at that time he said that he would not open his business, he would close it between the hours of 4:00 and 6:00 PM, so that he did not generate any trips during this time frame and, therefore, he did not trigger the PPP process because there were no trips. It was then approved and conditioned that he cannot operate during those hours. Ms. Delimont reported that the other case she knows of is Federal Express on Francisco, and there we had an already developed facility and Federal Express wanted to come into that building. We were concerned that there was intensification with this use, that it could increase the peak hour traffic. They voluntarily said, "We will not operate - we will limit our operations during that time frame". So that operation, again, did not trigger the PPP. Councilmember Thayer stated she remembers the case with the storage facility very well. The storage facility did not meet any of the PPP criteria. Since it did not qualify for PPP, the owner actually begged to be allowed some sort of exemption with the promise that he would operate during non -peak hours. Councilmember Shippey asked about the funding for Andersen Drive Extension, and Mr. Pendoley responded it is funded. Mr. Shippey inquired, why is it not fully funded until 1995/96, and Mr. Pendoley explained that we have the option of using CalTrans funds and saving our Redevelopment money and that seemed like a good idea. Councilmember Shippey then addressed the issue of minor use of specialty retail. He expressed concern about not considering all of the LI/O areas in the City and taking them in the aggregate. Mr. Pendoley responded that we have, and we know what other specialty retail is out there which meets the definition in the Zoning Ordinance where it is defined very clearly. He explained the other areas in detail, and noted that the General Plan is looking at these on a case-by-case basis. Councilmember Breiner noted that if we adopt the recommendation from the Planning Commission that the proposed PD (Planned Development) District be modified to require use permit approval for any additional specialty retail uses, there is still the possibility that there might not even be any more after, depending on the approval of this project. Mr. Pendoley responded, that is why staff made the recommendation, because it seems to be such a critical issue. It is a key discretionary issue, and the Council can always make that interpretation. Mayor Boro stated, for the benefit of the audience there were a few issues that were raised which he thinks were addressed last night, but he would like to have them on the record for this meeting. One had to do with setbacks. He asked, is it fair to say setbacks that are required on this site are not only in compliance with Fish and Game requirements, but also with the requirements of the General Plan? Mr. Pendoley stated that is correct. Mayor Boro responded, then the comments being made are talking about additives over and above that; in other words, we are fully supporting the spirit of our General Plan and also we have received approval from Fish and Game as well, in this arena? Mr. Pendoley replied, that is correct. Mayor Boro stated that the second issue is the traffic tools, Circular 212 versus the Highway Capacity Manual which was discussed last night. He asked Mr. Pendoley to encapsulate that issue. Mr. Pendoley replied the Council had a very technical presentation on that, both written and oral, which he could not summarize very well except to say that one of the things that the consultant did was to make an analysis and comparison of the two methodologies to advise when, respectively, they each are appropriate to use. They say that the 212 method is appropriate when you are making an overview evaluation decision such as PPP, developing basic General Plan policy, but the Highway Capacity method which is much more detailed and precise, is appropriate when you're reviewing an individual project, particularly when you are trying to design mitigation measures. He stated that the final, and perhaps most important, conclusion is that they yield the same results in terms of determining LOS. In other words, LOS D under the 212 method is equivalent to LOS D under the Highway Capacity method. It is the same standard. SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 27 SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 28 Mayor Boro inquired about the issue of the site being toxic. He asked that staff refresh the Council's memories on the role of the City, the role of the State, and what is involved, and why the staff feels comfortable with the fact that the site has been held clean. Mr. Pendoley explained that the basic authority in California to regulate the safety of landfills, particularly in regard to toxic issues, goes to the Integrated Waste Management Board. They have the broadest and most important authority, and a portion of that is delegated or held in common with the Regional Water Quality Control Board. He added there is a process which is overseen by the Integrated Waste Management Board which is called landfill closure. This process has two characteristics. There are very detailed engineering standards against which the development and engineering closure of the landfill site must be evaluated to assure that maximum protection is afforded to the public. The other characteristic of the closure process is legal. It is a very comprehensive, detailed, stringent, legal permitting process that is attendant to reaching the status of being deemed closed by the Integrated Waste Management Board. He stated that this property has been through that and has met the standards which are required, not only for basic closure but also for reuse. The Integrated Waste Management Board has applied a set of standard conditions as well as requirements for project -by -project review for this property, which say that it can, in fact, be redeveloped to other uses as long as it meets certain conditions and as long as the individual development proposals are reviewed by the Integrated Waste Management Board. In view of that extensive legal oversight by the State, as well as their expertise, it has been staff's recommendation to the Council that essentially the field - for all practical purposes - is preempted both in a legal sense and technical sense. The City does not have the legal or staff resources to get into that detailed area of regulation. It has already been handled by the State. Mayor Boro stated that his last question, which he thinks was answered at another meeting, but there was an allegation made tonight that Home Depot plans five years down the road to put another store in Novato. He stated he thought there was a denial of that somewhere in the process when this came up once before. Mr. Pendoley responded that as he recalls, the proponents for the project have several times said that simply is a misstatement on the record. Some speaker for the proponents said something to that effect at a meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee. He noted that attorney Jay Paxton has repeatedly clarified that and said "No", there is no intention to build another store which would serve the Marin area, for example, in Novato if this project were approved, but he cannot speak for the applicants. The Council would have to get more detail from them. Mayor Boro verified that that is on the record. Mr. Pendoley stated that it is. Mayor Boro stated he would suggest to the Council at this point, since we have heard testimony tonight and have had two prior meetings on this subject, and have gone through the EIR and certification, and have a couple of recommendations before us, that it might be worthwhile if we had some dialogue as to how we feel on this project or what our questions might be, on what our feelings are, and if we are ready to take some action tonight. Councilmember Thayer stated she has one further question. She asked why were the parcels chopped up the way they were? She noted that a lot of the concern from the environmental community has to do with setbacks, and it is not just a case of setbacks. We allow certain things to intrude in that setback. She noted that in the staff report for June 28th, it was suggested that we could always abandon the road there and use that as an additional landscape buffer. She asked whether that can be considered tonight, or whether it has to be a condition on the use permit. Ms. Delimont responded that the abandonment of the road was a suggestion from Fred Botti from Fish and Game, and we did sit down and have a meeting with the Public Works Director, Jean Starkweather and Barbara Salzman on this issue, and we explored the possibility. It is still an open issue. Public Works Director Bernardi was going to go back and look at it. It is not needed for mitigation measures. This would most likely be considered when we get to the project approvals. It could be a condition on the Subdivision Map that they provide an additional access easement to the site if it becomes feasible. Mr. Bernardi was going to look at their equipment needs. There might be an opportunity to abandon certain portions of the road, and they would be able to landscape that area and have the additional buffer. Councilmember Thayer stated she is aware that this meets the requirements of the General Plan, but she has sometimes been very frustrated and dissatisfied with General Plan requirements, because the Plan does not take into account that a building and a parking lot are the same in terms of impervious structures abutting wetlands, and she really thinks it is going to require an amendment to straighten that out. She stated she does agree, however, with staff that this project is consistent with what we do have in the General Plan. Councilmember Cohen stated there are a number of issues which have been presented for consideration, and he would like to state why he is satisfied with them. One is the issue of traffic. He stated he had previously expressed concern and had asked a number of SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 28 SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 29 questions about the methodology issues and the way in which we were evaluating traffic. He now wants to state for the record that he really believes this has gotten to the level of a dispute between qualified expert witnesses. He is satisfied with the level of review and the extra effort which staff has gone to, to get multiple experts to testify on these issues. He is satisfied that conclusions have been reached in the EIR that this project is consistent with the traffic allocations and the traffic consultant's analysis is the appropriate methodology used to make that determination. He recognizes that Mr. Harrison has a different opinion, but he is comfortable in relying on our staff and the expert testimony provided by the consultant retained by staff. Regarding the environmental issues, Councilmember Cohen listed the setbacks, traffic concerns and the closure of the dump site in particular. He noted that the closure is heavily regulated by agencies much more qualified to address those issues than the City of San Rafael, and he thinks we have to rely on their ability to do their job efficiently. He stated he has a couple of concerns remaining about this site, such as the issue raised by Mrs. Salzman about run-off, but they can be discussed relative to this project as we get into the conditions. He stated he would hope the Planning Commission would take that up. He would assume, based on the process, that the Council will see this project again under the use permit. Councilmember Cohen addressed General Plan consistency, stating he thinks staff has done an admirable job of answering the issues which have been raised tonight on every one of the General Plan issues which was challenged. He stated that on the question of why we are pursuing this project, it is because of a property owner who has private property rights he wishes to exercise. He wants to develop his property, he has a tenant, a company which is interested in acquiring or leasing that property, and generating it for development. He stated that is the way the system is supposed to work. He believes that under our City's adopted policies with regard to economic development that it is appropriate. He noted the point that was made tonight is that the PPP standard has been to review gross tax revenues. He stated a valid issue has been raised in the discussions that we have had relative to this project about whether or not it is appropriate to merely consider gross tax revenue or whether or not we consider net tax revenue. He stated we have, in this project, gone ahead and done that. It is a new standard and it is highly speculative because it calls on making conclusions about how people are going to respond to economic competition. Nevertheless, he feels we have seen evidence and opportunities presented here for the City to approve a project that is consistent with our economic development policy, land use policy, the land use background, discussion of economic development and East San Rafael policy which calls for encouraging economic development in that area. He stated he thinks the evidence presented makes a strong argument that this is a strong opportunity to capture sales that are currently lost to the City of San Rafael, and he thinks we should encourage that. Councilmember Cohen pointed out that there have been strong arguments heard from those who say that small businesses should be protected, and those who do not like Home Depot and would not shop there. He pointed out that Home Depot has become a billion dollar enterprise because they have a product to which people respond. He stated that those who wish to support good local businesses could certainly continue to do so, and are not precluded from doing that by the Council's approving the Home Depot application and zone changes. Councilmember Cohen stated that if the argument is that the consumers, the citizens of this City, should support local business because it is better in the long run in their self-interest but they do not realize it, and we need to protect them from themselves, he cannot believe that he was elected to exercise that judgment for them. He stated he was elected to attempt to be a good steward of the City for a period of time and guide its development and wide use of resources. He was not elected to make decisions about where our constituents should choose to spend their dollars and prevent them from doing what he considers being a mistake, regardless of the fact that they might choose to spend their money in that fashion. He does not think that is an appropriate position for this Council to take. Councilmember Thayer stated she has heard some excellent arguments on both sides of the fence, but it really does not matter what has been said here tonight except for the fact that each and every one of us on the Council has to do what, in his or her heart, they think is best for the City of San Rafael, and what they think is most appropriate. Councilmember Thayer stated she supports a free enterprise system, which she thinks is fundamental to our American way of life. She stated she has always supported it and has always supported free competition, and it is not up to her to judge the level of competition or the type of competition. That would constitute a restraint of trade. She pointed out that the City of San Rafael has a great need for retail tax dollars. She explained the budget problems in the City, and noted that it creates a great onus on the Council to do what is right, economically, and what is in the best interests of San Rafael. She pointed out that we really do need the sales tax dollars, and it is also a matter of growth. We need a stimulus in our economy. She stated she really does care SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 29 SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 30 about the businesses who are afraid they will lose trade, and she hopes that they will be able to "build a better mousetrap" and remain in business. She stated she is not persuaded by some of the economic arguments, but she feels she has to do her best for her City and its employees. She stated she would be very derelict in her duty if she did not look at this project very closely and say it is something that San Rafael needs. She stated she is not taken with big box retail, she does not go to Costco and probably will not go to Home Depot. However, she does believe in the free enterprise system. Also, there is a duty to the consumer who may want an added dimension to the retail market in San Rafael. Councilmember Thayer added that staff has done an excellent job in addressing some of the issues with regard to environmental impacts. She stated she is very familiar with landfills, since she is serving on the Waste Management Committee and they are presently working on a closure of a landfill in West Marin. She is familiar with the State procedure on closures and it is very heavily regulated. She stated she was very concerned about traffic for a while, but realizes that there is a disagreement between experts and she feels it is an issue upon which reasonable people can disagree. Therefore, she is satisfied with the reports she has received through staff and through the traffic consultant and our traffic engineers. Her only concern is with the setbacks, and she would like to work with the environmental community on this project to see if anything further could possibly be done. She stated something can certainly be done in the future with regard to any of the other parcels, because we are not at that point yet. She stated she thinks it is in the best interest of the City for her to vote for this project, and she will support the Home Depot project. Councilmember Breiner stated she will not touch on any of the items mentioned by the previous Councilmembers, although she agrees with many of them. She stated she is glad we did get additional economic data presented; it has been illuminating. It is more realistic than some of the initial figures, although of course none of them are really certain. Councilmember Breiner stated it would be difficult to turn such a project as this down because there are no environmental issues and mitigation measures which have not been brought before the Council. It has been very thoroughly analyzed and she feels that in the process we will be able to build as good and safe a project as we possibly can on the site. She stated she hopes this scrutiny will continue to be imposed. Councilmember Breiner stated she feels it is important for the Council to go along with one of the Planning Commission recommendations which would be to require use permit approval for any additional specialty retail use. She feels that is a cautionary provision that future Councils and Commissions will at least have the ability to weigh what is right for the site. She stated there was another Planning Commission recommendation she would like to see adopted, an amendment to allow the Public Works development flexibility of requiring a traffic study to determine trip generation rates for specialty retail uses. She feels these two issues are safeguards that we can build into any rezoning as it proceeds. Councilmember Shippey commended the staff on a wonderful job, not only through the process but especially tonight, because he had a number of concerns coming in about this project. He stated he will be breaking with the Council on this project, and his big issue is that he does not think the traffic situation has been properly resolved. He stated he thinks that when heavy businesses shut down during the peak of PM hours, we are over our capacity. He stated that the Andersen Drive project may help to solve the traffic problems, but it will be another case of rushing through development before the infrastructure has caught up with it, and he thinks we have been down that road before and he does not care to repeat it here. He stated he is still concerned to some degree about toxic generations, especially methane, but he believes that the monitoring program will be adequate to solve that. He stated he hopes we can address the wildlife buffer situation. He agreed that the parking lot is not a wildlife buffer and vehicle omissions, the PM -10, is a public health hazard. However, as he understands the staff tonight, it is not going to be significant with the approval of the Home Depot, so that objection has gone away. Councilmember Shippey stated his final concern is the recession, and noted we have had conflicting economic debates, and he is not sure what to believe. He stated he has concerns about whether this is truly a Priority Project. He does not know how much sales tax revenue is going to be generated, and he is left with the nagging question that this is a project which is really ahead of its time, that it does not belong here at this time, and therefore he believes it is not the time to grant the requested zoning change and he will vote accordingly. Mayor Boro stated he has a couple of personal comments. He noted that we have complimented the staff, but he feels we need to compliment all of the people who spent time with us, the applicant, the opponents, the people from the community. He also commended the Council, because this is the third special meeting on this subject. He stated it is exceptional that our meeting would go this late, but he feels it is because of the importance of the project and the fact that we are trying to bring some resolution to it, that we are still here tonight. He also complimented the Councilmembers on the SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/8/93 Page 30 SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/9/93 Page 31 fact that they have obviously done their homework on the project, and he feels that all of the points have really been reviewed and now we are down to what our opinions are. He stated he has wrestled, as all of us have, on this whole issue, what is the role of the Council, and he believes the role of the Council is to deal with the land use issues and not competition issues. He added he has given much thought to this issue. Mayor Boro posed the question, what if Home Depot does not come in, and what if six months from now whatever the agreements Mr. Jackson has with his employees all fall apart and he sells out to a third party who decides to bring in a whole new crew? The Council is not going to get involved in that; it is an economic decision that is going to happen in the private sector. It happens all the time; companies are bought and companies are sold. Competition is here. Mayor Boro noted that most people know he worked for the telephone company for 35 years. They did not have competition, but were a monopoly. They had a big change the last ten years he was there, and they all had to learn how to do things differently. He pointed out that marketing has changed and big box retail is here, and is not going to go away. He stated he feels an obligation to the community that if this big box retail is here, and if we do not accept it here, it will go elsewhere. He truly believes that, and he believes that will have a bigger impact on the City. He added his concern is what is best for our citizens, and he believes we need to protect our tax base, we need to protect our revenue base. Mayor Boro noted that the slide we saw tonight was about five years old. It talked about retail sales being 450 of our tax base. He stated he believes that is now down to 350. It has been eroding and we need to continue to sustain that. It is the obligation of the Council to be able to fund the services that come forward and are demanded by our citizens, and he believes the Council has an obligation, if all other things are equal, to approve something which will meet our needs as far as our revenue generation requirements. He stated he also believes that we should not deprive our citizens. Mayor Boro stated it is understood that people do move around, and they are in cars. He pointed out you do not go to a place like Home Depot on a bus, because you are going to buy things you could not carry home on a bus, so you are going to drive to it. Also, you will drive 10 or 15 miles if you think you are going to save a substantial amount of money. That is reality, and the people in this City deserve the opportunity to have that choice. Also, we have someone who wants to come here. Mayor Boro addressed some comments made by Councilmember Shippey. He stated that, in light of the recession, the fact that Home Depot is willing to pursue this project, he thinks is very positive for the City. He stated that at some point we are going to come out of this recession, and obviously Home Depot thinks so because they are willing to invest their dollars here. Regarding the issue of traffic, Mayor Boro noted it has been debated and is down to a technical discussion, but he feels it is important to clarify the reason, which is very plain to him, why these two or three businessmen we spoke about tonight have closed down. It is because each parcel has a limited amount of capacity and they have exceeded that capacity. This parcel still has capacity allowed to it. It is the fact that those businesses have exceeded their allotment that they are closed down, not that whether there is any capacity left. That is how he understands the policy which we, as a Council, have adopted. Mayor Boro noted that the environmental concerns are important, and he thinks we have addressed them. If the Council, at any time, wants to initiate a change in setbacks that can certainly be pursued. He believes our setbacks are, by most standards in the County, right up front, and he believes they are very liberal. He stated he is willing to look at what other cities have done, what other ideas we have, but at present we need to deal with what we have here, and it is inconsistent and not fair to the applicant or the property owner, and not fair to ourselves, to say these are our standards and we need them but we think we are going to change them. He stated you cannot change them now. If we have standards which are not meeting our needs, then we should address those separately but not in the middle of a project. He added that if Council wants to pursue a General Plan Amendment to go in and take a look at setbacks, let us set aside the effort and the money, and look at that. Mayor Boro concluded by stating he feels that this project is in the best interests of the City of San Rafael to go forward. He believes this can be done, and he really does think that Jackson's can prosper. He also thinks the City can prosper, and hopefully Home Depot will prosper in the future. Mayor Boro asked for Council action on the Resolution regarding the adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring Plan, including findings with respect to the override on PM -10. Councilmember Breiner inquired, would we insert the recommendations which are coming to us from the Planning Commission? Ms. Delimont responded that for the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the Council has in front of them an additional section on that dealing with some of the General Plan discussions we had tonight. If you move to pass this Resolution, that should be incorporated into it. Regarding the Ordinance, the Planning Commission recommendations were amended into the Ordinance which the Council has in front SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/9/93 Page 31 SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/9/93 Page 32 of them, and in addition to that, staff has given the Council some additional recommendations to change the buffers to reflect the Final EIR. That should be incorporated into the motion on that item. Ms. Delimont added that the first action should be to adopt the Resolution of the San Rafael Council adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the Shoreline Center including the Home Depot project, and also adopting the Statement of Findings - the Statement of Overriding Consideration for the project. Councilmember Cohen moved and Councilmember Breiner seconded, to adopt the Resolution presented by staff this evening, adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the Shoreline Center zone change, and including documentation as discussed. He read the title of the Resolution in full. RESOLUTION NO. 9016 - RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN FOR THE SHORELINE CENTER ZONE CHANGE AND MASTER PLAN FOR A 42+ ACRE BUSINESS PARK (SHORELINE CENTER), INCLUDING AN APPROXIMATELY 102,190 SQUARE FOOT BULK RETAIL BUILDING WITH A GARDEN CENTER (HOME DEPOT), AND ADOPTING THE STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE ZONE CHANGE AND MASTER PLAN, INCLUDING HOME DEPOT, FOR THE SHORELINE CENTER BUSINESS PARK AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Shippey ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Mayor Boro asked staff if they had anything to add before action on adoption of the Ordinance, and Mr. Pendoley responded he has nothing to add, but recommended the Ordinance be adopted as presented tonight. Ms. Delimont noted that the Ordinance has revised language which is in front of the Council, which sets forth the "whereases" and in the exhibit which is attached, which includes the development standards in which there is a section change recommended. She recommended that both of those changes be incorporated into the Ordinance. The title of the Ordinance was read: "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTED BY REFERENCE BY SECTION 14.01.020 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA, SO AS TO RECLASSIFY CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY FROM THE LI/O (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL/OFFICE) AND PD (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) DISTRICTS TO THE PD (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT) DISTRICT (RE: Z90-5, SHORELINE CENTER, 1615 EAST FRANCISCO BOULEVARD, AP NO. 09-320-02 TO 13, -15 to -18, -20 to -26, -32 to -38)" Councilmember Breiner moved and Councilmember Thayer seconded, to dispense with the reading of the Ordinance in its entirety and refer to it by title only and pass Charter Ordinance No. 1651 to print by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Thayer & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Shippey ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:30 A.M., September 9, 1993. JEANNE M. LEONCINI, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL 1993 SRCC MINUTES (Adj. Reg.) 9/9/93 Page 32