HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Resolution 9016 (Shoreline Center Business Park)RESOLUTION NO. 9016 � 1993
HUVPD I+AN50N
RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL "'Ar,4N C01110741,11
ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING P `10-L -ry
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 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE ZONE CHANGE AND MASTER PLAN,
INCLUDING HOME DEPOT, FOR THE SHORELINE CENTER BUSINESS PARK
specifications; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to make findings of fact
concerning, and to set forth in a cogent and comprehensive
manner, the process that has occurred relative to the planning of
future uses for the Shoreline Center site in San Rafael.
-1- ORIGINAL 0\0\6
WHEREAS, the proposed project is a 42+ acre business park,
including an approximately 102,190 square foot bulk retail
building with a garden center; and,
WHEREAS, Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 requires that
rer
when a public agency adopts findings pursuant to Public Resources
UJ
L-)
Code Section 21081 (concerning the potential significant
w
N
environmental impacts that will be generated by a project being
UJz
koapproved),
the public agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring
�I
r
r-
program for the changes to the project that it has adopted or
-,
oM
rn
made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or
LU
-'�
avoid significant effects on the environment; and
LU
w
WHEREAS, the City Council, by adoption of this Resolution,
Z:
M:
¢
LL -
<C
intends to make findings pursuant to Public Resources Code
z
••v
Section 21081 for the Shoreline Center Rezoning and Master Plan
0
F -
z
�
("Rezoning"), and for actions that may be undertaken to implement
UJ
r
`"'
r
that Rezoning ("Project Approvals"); and
U
O
X
caz
m
WHEREAS, the Rezoning Approvals incorporate as changes to
wthe
project, and make a condition of approval of actions that may
w
be undertaken to implement the Rezoning and mitigation measures
N
¢
>-
U
recommended to lessen or alleviate significant environmental
oF-
effects. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the
w
�
z
w
Cl-
Shoreline Center Business Park for the Project Approvals is
UJelf
w
z
W
UJ
designed to ensure that mitigation measures are implemented in a
w
3:
o
c
timely and organized manner and in accordance with certain
specifications; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to make findings of fact
concerning, and to set forth in a cogent and comprehensive
manner, the process that has occurred relative to the planning of
future uses for the Shoreline Center site in San Rafael.
-1- ORIGINAL 0\0\6
a
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of San Rafael
finds, determines and orders as follows:
1. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the
Shoreline Center Business Park, a copy of which is attached to this
Resolution as Exhibit A, is adopted.
2. The Statement of Findings and Statement of Overriding
Considerations Regarding the Zone Change and Master Plan, for the
Shoreline Center Business Park, attached to this Resolution as
Exhibit B, is adopted.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of San Rafael at an
adjourned regular meeting held on September 9, 1993, by the
following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Breiner, Cohen, Thayer & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Shippey
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
-2-
JEANNE M. LEONCINI, CITY CLERK
I WA we 11:
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
for the Shoreline Center Business Park
OVERVIEW
-C /J
The final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Shoreline Center Business Park
identifies the significant effects of the development of the Shoreline Center Business
Park according to the Shoreline Center zone change and Master Plan and
implementing actions ("Project Approvals"). The FEIR also identifies changes or
alterations to the Project Approvals which, if incorporated into the Project Approvals,
would avoid or substantially lessen many of these significant effects. These changes
and alterations are identified in the FEIR as mitigation measures.
Based on the body of information developed in the FEIR concerning the environmental
effects of development of the Shoreline Center pursuant to the Project Approvals, the
Shoreline Center Master Plan requires that the mitigation measures contained in this
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) be implemented in accordance
with the specifications and timing set forth herein.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this is to ensure that each mitigation measure is fully implemented in a
timely manner and, where necessary, to monitor its performance once implemented to
ensure its success. Consistent with this purpose, the MMRP specifies, for each
mitigation measure, the measurable, performance criteria the measure must achieve
for the measure to be deemed to have avoided or substantially lessened the significant
environmental effect it addresses. The MMRP provides specific steps to ensure fully
implementation and enforcement of each mitigation measure. The MMRP also
establishes a reporting system to document monitoring activities and compliance with
mitigation measures.
RESPONSIBILITIES
Unless otherwise specified herein, the developer has the responsibility for taking all
action necessary to (a) implement the mitigation measure according to the
specifications provided for each measure and (b) demonstrate to the -agency or
individual responsible for monitoring (generally, the City of San Rafael) that the
action required by the Mitigation measure has been successfully completed (i.e.,
51
submittal of reports, permits or other documentation). The government agency
responsible for monitoring the mitigation measure must verify that the required action
has been successfully completed. Verification by the government agency will typically
be accomplished through either staff inspection of the physical result of the mitigation
measure or acceptance and approval of documents or plans demonstrating compliance
with the mitigation measure. Both the developer and the monitoring government
agency share the responsibility for preparing the document stream (paper trail) which
is ultimately maintained by the City of San Rafael.
The developer of any parcel with the Shoreline Center shall designate an
Environmental Coordinator, whose qualifications will be subject to the approval of the
City and who will be responsible for monitoring compliance with the MMRP.
Existing inspection officials shall be used wherever possible. The Environmental
Coordinator must notify the City immediately in the event that:
(1) any mitigation measure is not being implemented in accordance with all
mitigation specifications and consistent with the implementation timing.
In this case, the City may impose those sanctions available under its
Municipal Code, and/or may grant a time extension, if warranted.
(2) it reasonably appears a mitigation measure will not be effective in either
avoiding or substantially lessening the significant effect toward which it
is directed. In this event, a replacement mitigation measure shall be
developed to the approval of the City and implemented by the developer.
COMPLIANCE FILE
The City of San Rafael will maintain a file (Compliance File) tracking implementation
of the MMRP and containing the records filed by the Environmental Coordinator and
any other material upon which the City relies in determining that a mitigation measure
has or has not been implemented in accordance with the MMRP.
CONTENTS
Attached to this MMRP as Exhibit A and incorporated herein is a document entitled
Shoreline Center/Home Depot Mitigation Monitoring Program. Exhibit A is a table
which sets forth the impacts, mitigation, agency responsible for the mitigation,
designation of when the mitigation is to be implemented, and the number of the
condition which imposes the mitigation as a condition upon the Project Approvals.
Where appropriate, reference may be made to the FEIR or other related portions of
the City's administrative record in connection with the Project Approvals. Exhibit A
is organized under the same topic structure and order contained in the FEIR and
consists of a separate item devoted to each mitigation measure to the FEIR. For each
-2-
mitigation measure (or set of measures) that is being imposed, Exhibit A specifies the
following information:
• Mitigation Measure. Provides the identification number from the FEIR,
followed by the mitigation statement. This mitigation statement
summarizes the required action of the FEIR mitigation measure as it
applies to mitigate the identified impact of the Project Approvals.
Although Exhibit A sets forth the language of each mitigation measure in
summary form only, every applicable requirement of each mitigation
measure is contained in the conditions of the Project Approvals (see
below) and will, therefore, be implemented and verified. For the full
text of each mitigation measure as originally recommended for the 90/90
Plan, see the FEIR.
• Impact to be Mitigated. Describes the impact which triggers the
mitigation requirement.
• Azencv Responsible. Identifies the party or parties responsible for
assuring compliance.
• Implementation Timing. Indicates when the various steps involved in
implementing mitigation requirements shall be performed.
In sum, the MMRP describes how compliance with the mitigation measures will be
achieved and how compliance will be verified. Where a mitigation measure is
unnecessary, infeasible or within the responsibility of a public agency other than the
City of San Rafael, the MMRP indicates that fact.
-3-
EXHIBIT "A" TO MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
Impacts
PLAN REVIEW
Shoreline Center Master Plan
.Significant Impacts
13.1-1: Conformance with City of San Rafael General Plan 2000
13.1-2: Conformance with Environmental and Design Review
I requirements
Less -Than -Significant Impacts
3.1-3: Conformance with San Rafael Shoreline Park Master Plan
3.14: Conformance with City of San Rafael Zoning Ordinance
3.1-5: Conformance with City of San Rafael Subdivision Ordinance
3.1.6: Conformance with Use Permit requirements
Nome Depot
Significant Impacts
3.1-7: Conformance with Environmental and Design Review
requirements
Less -Than -Significant Impacts
3.1.8: Conformance with San Rafael Shoreline Park Master Plan
3.1.9: Conformance with City of San Rafael Zoning Ordinance
3.1-10: Conformance with City of San Rafael Subdivision Ordinance
3.1-11: Conformance with Use Permit requirements
SOILS, GEOLOGY, AND SEISMICITY
Shoreline Center Mailer Plan
Significant Impacts
Table 1-1
Impacts and M itigatlon Summary
Page 1 or 40
Mitigation Agency Responsible
Implementation Timing Condition Number I Compliance Date
3.1-1 Reduce the maximum permitted height for all Shoreline Planning Department
Before permit issuance
Center buildings from 40 feet to 36 feet in accordance with
the City's building height policy.
3.1 2, Amend the proposed Shoreline Center Master Plan to Planning Department
Before permit Issuance
require a minimum landscape standard of 20 percent of the
project site. The Shoreline Ceititr jaodst ape plan must also
meet all landfdl citmno teqWmirzii6 uid Standahl�
prescribed id rWd 14, CC&, Air cli.7.8. egarding
esnbilshn=t aad malmonaw.c of a 6egir" cover,
including mu* 60 of regetailO i ind I.Milation
standards,
3.1-3: No mitigation is required.
3AA: No mitigation is required.
3.1-5: No mitigation is required.
3.1-6: No mitigation is required.
I3.1-7: Review and, if necessary, revise the Nome Depot landscape 1 I
1 Planning Department (Before permit issuance I I
Concept Plan to ensure that 20 percent of Parcel I is
landscaped.
3-1.8: No mitigation is required.
3.1.9: No mitigation is required.
3.1.10: No mitigation is required.
3.1-11: No mitigation is required.
Impacts
3.2-1a: Grading and excavation activities could result in dust and noise 3.2-1x:
during construction, offsite impacts from material transportation
or disposal, and penetration or the landfill cap.
3.2-1b:
3.2-2: Differential settlement of the refuse and underlying Bay mud 3.2-2:
could adversely effect the landfill cover and proposed structures
of the project site.
3 2 3: Potential slope instability around the perimeter of the proposal 3.2 3
development could adversely affect the landfill cover and pro-
posed structures at the project site.
3.2-4: Significant seismic activity could induce slope instability or 3.24
cause structural damage and bf buildings or other facilities at
the project site,
1001IOCB.SFO
Table 1-1
Impacts and Mitigation Summary
Mitigation
Develop an erosion and dust control plan as required by the
City's Grading Permit and the Environmental and Design
Review Permit, The project sponsor or contractor should
submit this plan to the City for approval before the issuance
of a grading permit by the City. Rrapam gsauebnieal
No corfswction shag peaetrate the clay liber w!Lboui written
per®ssioa front die appropriate and responsibie landitq
closure agencies. Incorporate the specifk res otiurKi�datious
for griv lag activities from geotechnical reports prepared for
future projects at Shoreline Center into the prejea their
development plans.
Prior to approval of the Final Subdivision Map, prspgra f
revised and final gtatdteg plan demonstrating that grpding
acdvides shall w pentam the landfill capor otEerivim
comprotaisc its integrity.
Incorporate the specific results, findings, and
recommendations of -ha reginfing settlemera fiord
geotechnical reports prepared for We future
pmjects at Shoreline Center into the project development
plans. All new construction should be structurally supported
on pile foundations. No -However, alternative foundation
designs an may be reasonable for this site if they Gait Meet
all applicable regulatory and technical requirements for
construction on a closed landfill w protect public health and
safety and the enyiroruncrht. Articulated ramps should be
constructed at all building entrance and exits. Foundation
piles should have bituminous coating to reduce loading of
landfill materials.
If future activities alter existing onsite and adjacent slopes,
prepare a subsequent slope stability and deformation analysis
and incorporate the results, findings, and recommend actions
of this analysis into project development plans.
New construction for the project should conform to the most
recent editions of the California Code of Regulations
Tide 24 (Building Standards), the Uniform Building Code
(Seismic Zone 4 Standards), and other local seismic design
and safety standards as appropriate. For example, piles
should be designed to resist forces associated with seismic
loading
Agency Responsible Implementation Timing
Public Works Before permit issuance
Public Works Before recording final
subdivision map
Public Works Before permit issuance
Public Works Before permit issuance
Public Works Before permit issuance
Page 2 of 40
Condition Number Compliance Date
Table 1-1
Impacts and hfiligntion Summary
fmtvrta Miligatlon Agency Responsible Implementation Timing Condition Number
3.2.5: Paeemtal soil erosion hazards arc addressed in Section 3.3, 3.2.5: Intplesxnt Mitigation Measures 3.3.2a through 3.3.2d in
Hydrology. Grading, and Drainage Section 3.3.
Less•Than•SignUkarot Impacts
3.2-6: The USE Of projetl -05 for nonagHculrural puipoxes would not 13.2.6
be a significant impact.
lfome Depnr
a 7 '—�-Raharuial-c gaiGr:n! --.'. s. : g�iltcanF3-2-7
wi
Idaw+Fwd-.for-
3.2.1; Grading and excavation on Pafeel I could xesalt in dust and 3.2.7
swiss dtlritsg co-asuvc:fasl, offsite impacts from nwerhl
traarpartaOonor disposal; and p&ictradort of the Undirli cap.
1001 IIICB.SFO
No mitigation is required. I
iGcaas
Implement Midge tion Mcantres 3.2•[R aid 3.2-1b. Iii
add hion, implement the following general grading Orit=aei
inwmmendedi6 ft iroambfihdfmxati xtionfor Horne
pi:pot [I awlCraud:i3,1.�
To Proride support for P1146j,a upper sQs7= Aub9is Werk
0ould he ovcmxravttcd end replitW as prvpedy compacted
fill. After eleatb* dee she, colla In ire" to receive fill a o
in areas wi ere the required rut its iesc than t foot yhmOd be
excavated to a depth of [ foot bcWw the existing gfsde.
Atter cacavaring as recommended, dx exposed soils should
be eerefully iuspecud to verify removal of all unmimhle
dcposlm. Next, the eaposodwils should be st dFtEd to a
depth of 6 inches; bra ugbtto op Unions moisture canters!, and
rolled with heavy compactiotty olpmenr.
Afrtr campaetiug the exposed soils, all rego(red fit! shWW Public Works
be placed in Ioa%e lifts not more than g incbex in dhicknesi
and cotsapacted to a ksst 90 petrent. the raaiahue cantet>e
of the onsite soilS at the time of compaction should be at or
Lip to about 2 percent above optimum moisture content.
During cuastrt Ldon
Musing construction
Pa gr 3 of 40
Compliance dale
Table 1-1
Impacts and Mitigation Summary
Impacts Mitigallan Agency Responsible
The reworking of the upper sails and the caropactian of all Public Works
required fill should be observed and tested. Observation and
testing should include:
32-8- Over the next 50 years, It Is estimated that parcel 1 Would settle 3 2417.
approximately 3 to 3th feet and could adversely affect the
landfill cover and structures such as texts, utilities, and the
Rotten Depot building.
1001 I0C6, SFO
• Observe the deanng and grubbing operations to
assure that all unsuitable materials have been
property removed.
• Observe the exposed subgrade 3n meas to receive
MI and to oras where excavation has; resulted in
the dttlred fi»ished ntbgrade, observe
protdralling, and delineate a= regoiring
ovetexcavation
• Perform visual observation to evaluate the
notability of apsite and import sults for f0!
placement; Collect and wisnit toil samples for
nxp lard or teconurseuded Mq itory: ("Brig
whens necessary.
Pelfami field detssiry and compi clhi n tcsdag to
determine the percentage of campactionAchieved
during fill placement.
• Monitor the installation of pile 6undatim is,
Irnpkmeni Mitigation Masure 3.2 2, lii addition,
implement @se fallowing recummeodailorufar stnuIIual
foundations from the Foundation ipvetgxtianfor Horne
Depot (LAWtCrxndali,1993:)
To provide support for the hunting, building floor slab, and Public Works
the lading dock retaining walls. use driven palings
exteod4Into the underlying firm older bay mud. txtend
prestressed concrete piles tbmugb tw refise, and salt
younger bay Loud anti into the underlying firm older bay
mud soils to a depth of at least 145 feet below existing
grade. Check the compressive and tensile strength of pile
sectkrns to vetiry stmmug car tky of t o pUer Applyll
slip layer eompodnd at equivalent, A JCA 318 inch in
thickness, to the top 105 feet of All pites.to reduce the
effects of boundary loailutg front the Wtight of exiting soil
on1 debris fill, piles in groups should he spaced at least 3
fees on centers.
Page 4 of 40
Implementation Timing Condition Number Compliance Date
During construction
Daring construction
Table 1-1
Impacts and Mitigation Summary
Impacts Mitigation — ---' At least 10 indicator piles shall be driven onsite prior to foundation
construction to evaluate driving resisiawc and installation procedures.
A wave equation pile drivcabtliry analysis should be performed on
proposed piles, In addition, a detailed pile insaBatiou plan titan be
developed prior to pile installation,
Sign pylons should also be supported an driven pilings; however, this
piling does not need to wepd.iwo the underlying older bay nand if
settlemeni of the pylon with the grouii l surface can be tolerated. The
piling for the sign pylon shall not be coaled with a slip compound,
All exterior slabs and wails should be"ft" floating smictum squared
from the pilo-suppotted buildings. At all store eauances, design
adjacent exterior slabs as ramps hinged to the pile -supported building al
one end and supported by rooting on the other end, Design the footing
supporting hinge slabs mlaGrely sigid.to wilhstauddifferential
settlement that may cause a tripping hantd, The footinf's stns NMI
capacity should be sufficient to allow the footing to open an
unsupported length of at teasi 40 feet;
All Utilities thai span from on-gnda suMtt to the pre -supported
building should be designed with loops; slip joints, or expansion links
to safely withsomd predicted onsite settieroents, Utdities should be
installed above the clay barrier layer (see Midgaton Mcmm 3.9-1),
3.2-9: Significant seismic activity could induce slope instability at 3.2-9: Implement Mitigation Measure 3.24.
Cause Procrutal damage of bufldwils or other faellides at the
projw site.
3.2-10, Project construction could cause son eroslom
3.2-10.
Less -Than -Significant fmpads
3.2.11- The slope stability analysis performed along the northern
3.2.11
property boundary of Parcel I coreluded that gross and surficlal
shape stability under both static and dynamic (trading is
satisfactory,
3-2-12: The pmjcct would not use soils suitable for agricultural
3.2-12•
purposes.
HYDROLOGY, GRADING, AND DRAINAGE
Shoreline Center Master Plan
Significant Impacts
J.3-1, Larger onsite surface water runoff volumes and higher peak
-la:
flows.
I3.3
1001IOCB.SFO
Implement Mitigation Measure 3 2-5.
No mitigation is required.
No miugation is required.
Page 5 of 40
Agency Responsible Implementation Timing Condition Number Compliance Dale
Public Works During construction
Public Works During coosuuction
Public Works During construction
Publfe Works During construction
Impacts
I OOI I OCB.SFO
Table 1-1
Impacts and Atitlgatlon Sumnsary
Atiligation
4-40"-4-t
Approval of Afire Phase 2 develuprimat bat Shoreline Center
shall he cortdymentupan the stmorasRd eomplenionof
prapQsed gtAnancaexawa&n tdvidet of the city
stnimwatrt pond. The pond was o■ignally designed in
Ace OO oro M smtrawater water mnW from deveiopni t of
Its cwm waMtsbcd, irxludhtg the Shmrelhte Ctwrr p[e]ed
On. Once sediments are ezcavaA. dee pord would hav4
enough capacity to sceammodAm Shoreline Center's runoff.
If pond ulaintrasarce is no; cnmplcte at the time Shorel'a:e
Center starts In develop, future pmjsrss shall be approved in
pluses onee it can 6, demo utrarad thx !hare is adequate
cspaeiW in the City's pond to accmsm odite pinjm*4
mil inter flows.
.. Leer
in
NliifM�R]NGt-SG}i�Y:n-
1, P I:4h*4Wak&aa
....rA Mqq:am
top f"4fem
Page 6 of 401
Agency Respon5ible Lnplementa l ion Timing Condition Nwnber Compliance Dale 1
Pnblic worts Before recording final
subdivision reap
V"b4L_VjQ;k.,
�S
i+a
p♦•]HHINg-pop.a Ftmon % RA N;q re i1Fi65UiiKa
pub41C-Warl(a and-dmnRp GpRNRKj{bp
3.3.2
bnpacts
Increased potential for soils erosion and decrease in surface
runoff water quality during construction.
100110CB.SFO
Table 1-1
Impacts and Mitigation Summary
Page 7 of 40
illftigation Agency Responsible Implementation Timing Condition Number Compliance Date
Swales shall be constructed in landscape buffer areas at the Planning Department/ Before permit issuance
perimeter of the project site so excess rainfall can drain Public Works and during consirucuon
Before permit issuance.
During construction
During construction
Before permit issuance
Before permit issuance
Before permit issuance
offsite rather than infiltrate into the la WMI. Inuarl file
undetdmins beneath irrigated areas is the landscape buffers
to ensure adequate drainage Design males to connect
existing catch basins.
3.3 -IW:
Provide an engineer -designed storm drainage system for
Public Works
Shoreline Center and the associated parking lots. This
system will discharge to the retention pond, the draipage
Oarurel adjacent to parcels 1 and 1i lading to rhe City pond,
CaaalwvysFRaFs , and San Rafael Bay. Check all outfall
pipes for available capacity to convey 100 -year storm design
flows.
If it is necessary to increase outfall capacity, either replace
Public Works
an existing outfall with a larger size or install any new
outfall pipes adjacent to existing outfalls in order to take
advantage of existing outfall protection and to minimize the
new areas of disturbance in the retention pond and the
Canalways marsh. Apply for all necessary permits,
including, but not necessarily limited to, an Army Corps of
Engineers Nationwide permit.
3.3-2a-
Cover graded areas with mulch and revegetate as soon as
Public Works
feasible after grading has been completed. Complete grading
and mvegention before winter rains begin. Keep
construction as far away from the edges of the site as
possible.
3.3-2b,
Apply for applicable grading permits from the City of
Public Works
San Rafael.
3.3-2c:
During site grading, utilize erosion and sediment control
Public Works
measures to prevent sediment loading to the surrounding
surface waters according to City standards.
3.3-2d:
Apply for a Notice of Intent to be covered under the State of
Public Works
California National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) general permit for construction. A Notice of
Intent is required for any construction or grading activities
which will affect an area equal to or greater than 5 acres.
Before permit issuance.
During construction
During construction
Before permit issuance
Before permit issuance
Before permit issuance
Impacts
3.3-3: Increased loading of pollutants to surface runoff and degradation 3.3-3i
of water quality after construction.
Table 1-I
Impacts and Mitigation Summary
Mitigalian
Cotismict scull oii ind greasesepamton in parking for areas
to collect peiroiem rampovtttis: giease, and odor
potentially contaminated sediments before sturmwater fs
dl%hmcd offsttd,. flerause dte u li6ft of pollutants found
in urban runoff aro the produci of only dre first Bush of
precipitation (ge eraiiy defined as,tbe first 30 mixtures of
runom, design die oil ata! grease sepatamn to accnmmodatt
the six month 3tniiu evenL Owe storm flows exceed the six
month design flow:. cy will bypis the od and grease
separatots Matntajnoil and grease st"to s by
implementing a.jijotuNy monitoring program to determine
when accumulettid sediments "U be >xrnoved for disposal at
Agency Responsible Implementation Timing
Public Works Before recording final
Public Works
an appropriate disposal site.
As part of the regnjfetnents of the NPDSS general permit for Public Works/Regional
construction, Implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Water Quality Board
Plan to control accidental leaks or spills of material's that Control
may contain urban pollutants dwt could enter the stomdrain
system Rsconirocadetf ttteasurts ittc#nde regutaNy swxpmg
parking lots, covering loading docks, and implementing an
amploycreducation progrem. lu RwQn is responsible
Cor moniroting and enforcing this plan.
Less -Than -Significant Impacts
3.3-4: Regrading the site would not result in a different distribution of I
3 -3A, No mitigation is required.
runoff to die various receiving waters and would nut have a
significant impact.
10011OCBSFO
subdivision map, before
permit issuance, and
ongoing monitoring
During construction and
ongoing momlofing
Before permit issuance
and ongoing monitoring
Page 8 of 40
Condition Number Compliance Date
Table 1-1
Impacts and Mitigation Summary Page 9 of 40
Impacts I Mitigation Agency Responsible Implementation Timing I Condition NumberCompliance Dale
Home Depot
Significant Impacts
3.3-5: 3.3-5a: Replace existing 12 inch stortnwater pipe with a 15 -inch or Public Works Before recording final
no g GA R'FG-' larger diameter pipe- Throughout the drainage system subdivision map
design, it is recommended that downstream pipe diameters
nor decrease.
The diameter of the drautage pipe tt:ceiving flows from it 15 -
inch pipe for Home Depot is only 12 inches:
fess-Than-SlgoifieaM Impacts
3.3-6: Larger runoff volumes and Increased mormwater flows
3.3-65b: Provide an engineer -designed storm drainage system for the Public Works
Home Depot and the associated parking lot. This system
will discharge to the retention pond, ibe drlihragcChoMe)
adjacent to Parcels I and 3 leading to the City pond,
Caoalwwsye-rnarah, and San Rafael Bay. Check all outfall
pipes on Parcel I for available capacity to convey 100 -year
storm design Bows.
If it is necessary to increase outfall capacity, either replace Public Works
an existing outfall with a larger size or install any new
outfall pipes adjacent to existing outfalls in order to take
advantage of existing outfall protection and to minimize the
new areas of disturbance in the retention pond and the
Canalways marsh.
3.3-7. Altered Hydrology 3.23-7: No mitigation is required.
WATER QUALITY
Shoreline Center Mosler Plan
Significant Impacts
3.4-I: Project development could provide a pathway for groundwater 3.4-la� Comply with San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Public Works
or leachate migration and increase the rate of leachate generation Board criteria for pile construction in landfills.
that could cause adverse effects on groundwater or surface water
quality -
100110CB SFO
Before permit issuance
During construction
During construction
3.4 -lbs Follow recommendations by Brunsing Associates, Inc. Public WorkslPlanning Before permit issuance
(1992) to prevent leakage in underground pipes. The Department
recommendations include using flowmeters to perform
regular water balances so that leaks can be detected and
repaired, Use indigenous species in landscaping to reduce
the demand for applied water.
Table 1.1
Impacts and Dllligallon Summary
Impacts Mitigation Agency Responsible
3 4-1c: Any grading and construction on the project site shall require A+bl,r u'oAct Plannntg
the express wrtnen approval of the appropriate regulatory Oeparrment
landfill closure agencies pursuant to the Stipulated otter of
Compliance and Agreement between the LEA, Cal-Pox,
Inc., and SQDS (the permitted operator of 0tc SQW
facility), and any conditions imposed by these agencies.
fir- v..o...vc .+nb p::.b n,:. 19-R16H41115
1n
addition, the project applicant shall comply with ill
performance standards and regulatory requiremenu
stipulatedutderTit: 14, CCR, Articla7-9; Section
17796. Post-Closuro Land Use. arab the Stipulated
Otder of CompIma and Agreement to ensure that all
post-closure activities will not cable a potential threat to
public health and safety and ft environntem. All
future permits and relevant reports Irv! documents
submitted to the appropriate landfill closure agencies
shall also be filed with the City of San Wacl Planning
Department.
Home Depot
3.4-2: leachate impacts to water quality associated with development I
3.4 2i Implement Mitigation Measures 3.4-1a through 3.4-Ic.
of Home Depot would be similar to those described for
Shoreline Center.
PLANT AND ANIMAL C0111111UNITIES
Shoreline Center Matter Plan
Significant Impacts
100110CB.SFO
Implementation Timing
Before permit issuance;
during construction;
ongoing monitoring
Page 10 of 40
Condition Number Compliance Dale
Impacts
3.5 I: Approximately 42 acres of upland ruderal vegetation will be
removed during project site grading and development.
100110CB SFO
Table 1-1
Impacts and Mitigation Summary
Mitigation
3 5 la: Increase the width of the landscape buffers on Parcels I and
6 to cover the area from the building setback across the
project site property boundary to the edge of the approximate
20 footwideCity-owned property at the toe of the landfill
slope. Revegetation should avoid encroachment on the arta
currently used as a City maintenance road and the existing
drainage swale leading from the City stormwater pond to the
outfall line. These efforts will pmvide a continuation of the
landscaping plan proposed in the Park Master Plan for the
area adjacent and north of Parcel 6. All iivegetati`iiii Woo
shall be ptepamd and implemented in eonsuitadon with and
approved by professional consultants specializing in Habitat
fesforation.
Before revegetation, a qualified wildlife biologist or ecologist
should establish the lower limit of tevegetadon to avoid any
impact on existing habitat that may be used by special -status
species. The lower limit of the revegetation zone should be
established with steel stakes and Bagging. Removal of
existing native vegetation shall be avoided. Generally, the
upper margin of healthy picklcweed and a 10 -foot buffer
shall be used for the lower limit of any landscape
improvements.
Revise Section AA (Marsh Edge) on Figure MPA showing
the Master Plan Site Design Standards to show the revised
landscape buffer in order to improve habitat on the City -
owned band between the south shore of the Canalways
Marsh and the building setback line of Parcels I and 6.
Prepare a restoration plan and consider using dense shrub
plantings, such as Coyote bush, along the edges of the access
road to screen die access road and provide cover for wildlife
while moving across the roadway to the marsh or uplands.
Agency Responsible Implementation Timing
Planning Department Before permit issuance
Page I1 of 40
Condition Number Compliance Dale
IlimwcLs
3.5-1b:
3.5-2: The proposed perimeter landscape buffers will not sufficiently 3.5-2:
screen the buffer and marsh areas from potential adverse impacts
to wildlife from headlights, human observation, casual visitors,
noise, and other human activities.
100110CB SFO
Table 1-1
Impacts and Mflligation Summary
Mitigation
Success landscaping of the landfill slope would create an
effective buffer zone between the development and the
Canalways marsh and provide significant improvement in the
value of wildlife habitat. The restored area would become
an integral pan of the Shoreline Park Master Plan. Submit
the restoration plan, including landscape planting and
irrigation plans, to the City of San Rafael Planning
Department for review and approval. TT¢ restoration plan
should also be submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service for comment because the upper marsh margin and
lower landfill slope may provide habitat for the endangered
salt marsh harvest mouse and other special -status species.
Increase the landscape buffer adjacent to Parcels 2 and 3 to
extend north onto the 20 -foot -wide City -owned property
towards the Canalways marsh to remove weedy plants and
debris and replace low value areas with native marsh and
upland plants.
Revise the proposed Shoreline Center Mager Play landscape
plans to include perimeter landscape berms in areas between
the top of the slopes and building setbacks in areas adjacent
to marsh habitat. VigitaW Derma would ijnif-iij
lacmase & edccriveness of the landscape buffer. to iedoce
Impacts on wildlife habitat trom headlight glare and security
lighting, human observation, cava[ visitops, noise, and other
human activities that may he intrusive on ole habitat areas
created or preservO. Ittcotpotating berms near dtc crest of
the slope as a mitigation measure would reduce this impact
bo tess8barisignificaMlevels, Specific areas to be screened
by berms include:
• Parcel 3—on the north side adjacent to Canalways
marsh
• Parcel 1—the northwest and westerly sides adjacent to
Canalways marsh
• Parcel 6—the northwest side along the City outfall line
separating the Canalways marsh
• Parcel 6—the southeast portion of the site nearest the
MMWD marsh.
• Parcel $—clnacrt to the MMWV rmrsii
Agency Responsible Implementation Timing
Planning Department Before permit issuance
Planning Department Before permit issuance
Page 12 of 40
Condition Number Compliance Date
Impacts
3 5 3: The use of non-native plants in the proposed Planting Concept 3.5-3a:
Plan will not mitigate for the reduction in upland habitat value
for wildlife.
1001 l OCB.SFO
— Table 1-1 — -- --
--
Impacts and Mitigation Summary
Mitigation
Agency Responsible
Use landscaped berms approximately 5 feet in elevation
above the parking lot elevation or building access elevations
to screen headlights, human activities, random visitor access,
and noise from the landscape buffer areas on the perimeter
slopes and the upper marsh. berms constructed will need to
comply with gcotechnical considerations on placement and
land factors. Consider use of lighter mixes with
amendments such as sawdust Berns shall be blended into
the landscape plans to funhe'r enhance wildlife habitat values
in perimeter buffer areas. Compatibility with Shoreline Park
visitor access can be maintained by limiting park visitor
direct access and viewsheds to the points shown on Figures
19 and 20 of the Enhancement Plan.
Update and revise the proposed Master Plan and list of
Planning Department
plants on the Planting Concept Plan to reflect the list of
suitable species shown in the Shoreline Enhancement Plan.
Establish guidelines for the site and densities of landscape
plants. Revise the project landscape plan to reflect the goals
of restoring native plant habitat in the perimeter buffer areas.
Develop a landscape maintenance plan that provides for
Planning Department
wildlife habitat protection and is consistent with the Park
Master Plan Enhancement Plan guidance. Incorporate the
landscape maintenance plan as part of the proposed Master
Plan.
Develop a species list for use in the accent areas in parking
Planning Department
areas and around buildings selected from the Shoreline
Enhancement Plan.
Give priority to plants with higher wildlife value for food,
Planning Department
cover, and refuge in developing detail landscape layouts.
Suitable plant lists are provided in the Park Master Plan and
Enhancement Plans. Use of extensive shrub cover along the
perimeter slopes and near the maintenance access road to
enhance screening of marsh areas shall be a goal of the
landscape plan, Selwdon And use of shrubs, such as gum
plant (aiadefia sp.) and mule fat (Boccharis trtroinea),
would enhance Cover and smening along ft ntaM margiN
white placement of trees, such as Bishop pine or Mon wey
cypress along the crest and base of the perimeter slom
would et{litl= wteening olid provide Isoladon of roirsb
anus;
Implementation Timing Condition Number
Before permit issuance
Before permit issuance
Before permit issuance
Before permit issuance
Page 13 of 40
Compliance Dale
- — — '- '— Table 1-1'— -- — -- -- ---
Impacts and Mitigation Summary
Impacts Mitigation Agency Responsible Implementation Timing
3.5-3b: Develop a landscape irrigation plan that meets the objectives Planning Department Before permit issuance
3.5A: The habitat value of die perimeter landscape buffer would be
degraded if all of the non native weedy vegetation is not
removed.
100110CB.SFO
identified in the Enhancement Plan, meets MMWD goals for
conservation and reuse, and is practical for use with the spe
cies mix proposed in the Enhancement Plan. Consider using
reclaimed water for landscaped areas in coordination with the
Enhancement Plan improvements The project area has been
identified as a potential reuse arca because of the close
proximity of the Central Marin Sanitation Agency (CMSA)
main treatment plant. Reclaimed water could be available
for use at this site in the future.
However, several iajtnrs rmy preclude recla'uned water
ivailahility in the neat fueim: budget constraints at CMSA
and MMWD had ft CIO, of San RIM, high salinity levels
(up to 2,000 mg1l chloride) in the CMSA effluent that ata
due in par to iMWralion in the sewer system, and the sail
tolerance tevels of liu s'Upe plants.
Nevertheless, hi ace, "ide' M' O with dtt MMWD polky, new
dtvelopmentlshould iiiClude'specific features that Would
allow can==on to 'a teclaitrtrd mater $Yom as any poitm In
Ow bralre.
The specification of Section 12b—landscape Design of the
proposed Shoreline Center Master Plan shall be revised to
include the irigadon system guidelines established by
MMWD for use of reclaimed water, such as use of purple
pipe, separate metering, and piping connections.
3.5A Eradicate non-native plants from all areas adjacent to marsh
and upland habitat created in the landscape buffer around the
project site. Eradication shall occur in the spring for a
period or three to five, years. Coordinate removal plans with
implementation of the Shoreline Enhancement Plan and
Shoreline Park Master Plan. The removal process shall not
incline herbicide Raying.
Before surcharged fill is placed on the project site, graders
shall mmovt ail ottcite vegetation. As surcharged fill is
removed or mlocatea, (tie cleaned area will be seeded with
the native grass miarturel remommanded fp ore Shoreline Park
Master Plan w provide a vegaatiou cover mad serve w
control erosion if buildout is delayed irioie than three in six
months,
Planning Department Before permit issuance
Planning Department Before permit issuance
Page 14 of 40
Condition Number Compliance Dale
Impacts
3.5-5: Lack of coordination between the Shoreline Center Master Plan, 3.5 5:
Shoreline Enhancement Plan, and Shoreline Park Master Plan
could have the following impacts:
If the City's Enhancement Plan improvements do not occur
simultaneously with the landscaping of the perimeter buffer
a band of weedy, invasive ruderal vegetation will remain
around the perimeter of Parcel 6.
Weeds could invade the proposed native plant landscaping
and marsh areas and require control measures, including
the use of herbicide controls.
A weedy zone will interrupt the transition between upland
habitat created in the perimeter buffer and the levee and
MMWD marsh, decreasing the benefits to be gained by the
buffer revegetation efforts.
The weedy zone will provide a refuge for undesirable
wildlife and contribute to prolonged impacts on marsh
habitat.
• The weedy zone between perimeter landscape areas and
marsh areas could become an attractant for disposal of
refuse and litter as visitor access to the Shoreline Center
site increases -
3.5 -6: Increase in general light levels within the project area will
degrade the habitat quality of adjacent marsh areas and could
potentially cause a loss in habitat availability for sensitive
species.
1001 IOCB.SFO
Table 1-]
Impacts and Mitigation Stunmary
Mitigation Agency Responsible
Buildout of the Shoreline Center site will require landscaping
in perimeter areas along ft slopes of the landfill cap.
Coordination between the Shoreline Enhaneemant flan; the
proposed Shoreline Patio Master Plan; and die Shoreline
Center Maser Plan during hnptemuitation of these plans wl'll
be essential in establishing native ptam Vegetarian, habitat
restoration or creation, protection of valuable wildlife
habitat, and the developmcmof tnainuenanen practices that
have potential benefits for wildlife.
Page 15 of 40
Implementation Timing Condition Number Compliance Date
Revise the proposed Master Plan to include a landscaping Planning Department Before permit issuance
plan that is compatible with the Enhancement Plait and
Shoreline Park Master Plan. The prrptisal Master Pian shall
have the following requirements:
• Landscape planning shall be coordinated with the Planning Department
Shoreline Enhancement Plan improvements during each
phase of the propoud Master Plan buildout period.
• The proposed Master Plan should be updated, yearly at Planning Department
a minimum, to reflect the status of the Enhancement
Plan during the interim period to conclusion of project
buildout. The City of San Rafael's efforts to complete
the Park Master Plan and Enhancement Plan should be
incorporated into the proposed Shoreline Center4
Master Plan to ensure that all plans are complementary
and compatible.
• California native plants with upland habitat values shall Planning Department
be used in landscaping all perimeter areas upslope of
marsh habitat. Upland vegetation shall be established in
zones that blend with natural plant communities and are
compatible with the Enhancement Plan objectives.
3.5-6: Revise the Lighting Master Plan for Development of Planting Department
Shoreline Center to reflect more specific guidance on and Police Department
perimeter and other light sources, including:
Before permit issuance
Before permit issuance
Before permit issuance
Before permit issuance
Table 1-1
Impacts and Mitigation Stmtmary
Impacts Mitigation Agency Responsible
• Restrict light levels in marsh areas beyond the property Planning Department
line to current ambient conditions to the extent feasible and Police Department
using landscape vegetation and downlight fixtures. No
increase in ambient light levels in the marsh and
adjacent habitat should be allowed beyond the parking
lot perimeter and setback.
• A lighting survey of marsh areas along the property line Planning Department
shall be conducted along the property lines of Pamel! 1, and Police Department
3, S, end 6 adjacent to marsh and open water habitats
and the results of the survey mapped for future
reference in the Lighting Master Plan.
• Proposed new developments shall demonstrate that addi- Planning Department
linnal perimeter lighting will not exceed measured and Police Department
ambient levels. Reflected glare, surface reflectivity,
and other indirect sources of light shall be considered in
evaluating light levels of proposed building or
development uses.
• New perimeter lighting shall not intrude in marsh Planning Department
habitat. If possible, perimeter lighting should be and Police Department
reduced to minimal levels essential for security and
safety reasons in all perimeter areas adjacent to marsh
habitat.
• Downlight fixtures and cutoff pole fixtures shall he used Planning Department
in all perimeter areas to minimize lighting impacts on and Police Department
wildlife.
100110CB SFO
Page 16 of 40
Implementation Timing Condition Number Compliance Dale
Before permit issuance
Before permit issuance
Before permit issuance
Before permit issuance
Before permit issuance
3.5-7:
Impacts
Pollutant and sediment loads from discharged stonnwater could 3.5.7a:
potentially affect adjacent receiving waters, including the
Canalways marsh. City retention pond, and MMWD pond, and
could harm benthic invertebrates, fish, and a wide variety of
water fowl, shorebirds, and other wildlife that utilize the ponds
and near shore mudflats.
1001 IOCB.SFO
Table 1-1
Impacts and Mitigation Summary
M1titigattan
In response, to public comments on the DHIR, a variation of
the Ltdl bullet recommended under previous Mitigation
Measure 3.5-7a below has been incorporated Into Section 3.3
of the Draft final MR to address impacts related to water
quality degradation in adjeceitt open water and marsh
habitats due to sediments and p*taru loathing in the
$totmwater. Revised Mitigado Measure 3.3.3a
tecometxrrds WhM..cdon of sh all all anti grease separator
ill parking tot anu to collect peuofeunt eompot ods, Btease;
ad potential eonlamhated sedimemis before stotmwater is
tlitchargedotishe. ImpkmentiWitof tMscd Mitigation
Measure 3.3.3a, together with evised Mitigation Measure
31-7b, would mdueti powmial water quality degradation in
idjaccru offs x habitats to a 14ihan-sigtilficantiutpict.
Therefore, DOR Mitigation Measilte 3,3.7A below has been
deleted,
'A WOPP210091 With Lh- Qt)' and G-11401 X4ftFiA 2211"2100
WOW- -4-9 1W GORPOPIU-1 Stagil,
5018"! an OpligH OF SGRIS 691014011-69A 9
Plan site by ,olle,!ing and divoioi;ig flows is kasibls�
Agency Responsible Implementation Timing Condition Number
Page 17 or 40
Compliance Date
Impacts
1001 IIICB SFO
Table 1-1
Impacts and Mitigation Summary
Mitigation.
wm and dospow of sediment. -R
dlbde-artsils.
traaimW.
and - Z-. , , -.
• Sediment Traps -1 Outlets- Canun.,G"Gn-aad
loading and Gomm of 'he .,"l—A PINUff GORI-MiA26OR
3.5 7b: Implement Mitigation Measures 3 3.2a through 3.3.2d and
Mitigation Measures 3.3-3a aad 3b. The following A
auml>.wf. W—A actions should also be implemented by
Shoreline Center developers in concert with the City of San
Rafael:
Agency Responsible Implementation Timing
Page Ig of 40
Condition Number Compliance Date
Impacts
1001 IOCB.SFO
Table 1-1
Impacts and Mitigation Summary
111iligalion
• The prop"od Master Plan should be amended to
include a detailed, site specific Best Management
Practices (BMP's) section to avoid, reduce, and control
stormwater loadings from proposed developments.
Elements in the BMP program shall be based an the
RWQCB's nonpoint source control program. Use the
results gained from the Santa Clan and Alameda
County programs for similar watersheds and land uses
mixes to establish site-specific control measures for
Shoreline Center.
uxaw. When Marin County implements its Urban
Runoff Baseline Control Prognm, the Results of the
program should be used in targeting the specific BMP's
for the Master Plan based on expected business use
mixes in final buildout.
Page 19 or 40
Agency Responsible Implementation Timing Condition Number Compliance Dale
Public Works Before recording final
subdivision map
Public Works Before permit issuance
and ongoing monitoring
Impacts
3 5 A: Surface water runoff and other water quality contaminants could 3.5-8a:
potentially affect the Point Reyes Bird's Beak and Marin
Knotweed. two special -status plant species that may occur in the
salt marsh habitat adjacent to the project site.
100110CB.SFO
Table 1-1
impacts and Mitigation Summary
Mitigation
The purpose of the proposed iare plant surveys previously
recommended In Mitigation Measures 3.5.8a and 8b below
was to protect these species from potential contamination due
to sediment emsion caused by stor mwater discharges from
the project sim. However, implementatiob of revised
mitigation meuutes in Section 3.3 of this Draft Final EIR
addressing erosion and water quality degradation during and
after construction would seduce lmpaei 3.5-8 to a less -
than -significant level.
Implement Mitigation Mot *ures 3.3-2a diirough 3.3-2d artd
3.3.3a and 3b. No fttrtber mitigation is required. ZOMM"
-FQ;iQA. 81111 46)
"gro-Men, Llask Prawn— OF suitable habitat art
Page 20 of 40
Agency Responsible Implementation Timing Condition Number Compliance Date
AJapniag-Depanman Betwrs{ts ce
Impacts —
3.5 9- Discharge of potentially harmful materials (e.g., swrmwater 3 5 9:
spills, irrigation runoff, street cleaning, etc.) to the adjacent
Canalways. MMWD, and city marshes could potentially effect
the habitat of the California black rail. California clapper rail,
and saltmarsh wandering shrew.
3.5-10: Increased surface runoff into the Canalways marsh could
inundate habitat for the endangered saltmarsh harvest mouse
100110CB.SFO
3 5-10:
— — —Table 1-1
Impacts and Mitigation Summary
Mitigation
Agency Responsible Implementation Timing Condition Number
Modify the proposed Master Plan to establish a marsh
Planning Department Before permit issuance
monitoring program to track potential impacts on the
marshes and institute a corrective action process if impacts
are detected The program should he designed to detect and
remedy adverse impacts on the marsh that may occur with
future business use. Implement the following measures:
• Remove liner and take steps to decrease the contributing
Planning Department During construction and
sources such as increased signage, numbers of waste
ongoing monitoring
receptacles, covering of trash containers, and other
reasonable measures to avoid liner entering the marsh.
• Erect signs at points of entry that identify the marshes
Planning Department During construction
as wildlife habitat and that disturbance of wildlife,
trespassing on vegetation, and disposal of litter is
detrimental to the values of the marsh.
• The project proponent should undertake efforts to
Planning Department Ongoing monitoring
maintain and enhance the habitat values of the marsh
and restored upland areas surrounding the development.
Monitoring shall be integrated with implementation of
the Park Master Plan and the Enhancement Plan. The
plan should include measures such as the cost of addi-
tional and replacement signage, litter removal, plant
materials, tools, publicity, and similar measures to
enhance the marsh community, and improve Shoreline
Center worker and visitor awareness of marsh values,
vulnerability, and sensitivities to human interferences.
• The project tipplicint s6otild actively pariielpiie in any
Planning Department Ongoing monitoring
source reduction andlor recycling programs currently
implemented is the City w help reduce the amount of
waste generated at the sourm of production is well as
encourage recycling.
Implement Mitigation Meana 3.3-1i. No funher mitigation
Planning Bepartrrwm
is required. Us dsvelapst: ptg;alm
A1 --m l 5 Zb.
-Ad GagaiAg mon toting
Page 21 or 40
Compliance Dale
3 5 1144 Reduction of upland foregoing habitat and prey for existing
predators could increase predation on the saltmarsh harvest
mouse in the Canalways marsh.
1001 l OC H. SPO
This landscape buffet shalt be planted with oauve shrubs,
grasses, and other plant species to provide cover and food
sources for wildlife that live onsite or move between habitats
to the north and south. Landscaping efforts shall be
compatible with the San Rafael Shoreline Enhancement Plan,
Shoreline Park Master Plan, and Iandk closure
requirements- Tree cover in this landscape buffer shad not
obstruct the two view corridors designated on Parcel 6. It is
anticipated that most movement within the corridor will take
place at night when them is limited human activity onsite.
Therefore, fencing to restrict human access between the
project site and East San Rafael Shoreline Paris Is mat
proposed.
3.5 = No mitigation is required.
Table 1-1
impacts and Mitigation Summary Page 22 of 40
Impacts
Mitigation Agency Responsible I Implementation Timing Condition Number I Compliance Date
Less -Than -Significant Impacts
{
4,5.11: Site development could deter wildlife migration and isolate the
35-11: Revise the proposed Shoreline Center Master Plan to Planning Department Hefom permit issuance 1
Canalways marsh and MMWD pond habitats to the north and
increase the minimum width of both the landscape buffer and and ongoing monitoring
south, respectively,
building setback area on the eastern edge of Parcel 6 from
10 and 25 feet respectively to 37 112 feet (this figure
represents the average building setback: recommended in the
proposed Shoreline Center Master Plan for Parcell 6).
Selecting a width for this migration corridor is a somewhat
arbitrary process. However, the proposed 37 112 -foot
landscape buffer should be adequate for the types of species
anticipated to use this corridor and would provide for a more
protective movement corridor compared to what currently
exists onsite and what is proposed for EAst San Rafael
Shoreline Park. With implementation of landscaping
proposed in the Shoreline Park Mauer Plan, this buffer Brea
would be extended an additional 20 feet However, this
additional area would include recreation opportunities such
as on asphalt pact where Union activity might defer wildlife
movement
3 5 1144 Reduction of upland foregoing habitat and prey for existing
predators could increase predation on the saltmarsh harvest
mouse in the Canalways marsh.
1001 l OC H. SPO
This landscape buffet shalt be planted with oauve shrubs,
grasses, and other plant species to provide cover and food
sources for wildlife that live onsite or move between habitats
to the north and south. Landscaping efforts shall be
compatible with the San Rafael Shoreline Enhancement Plan,
Shoreline Park Master Plan, and Iandk closure
requirements- Tree cover in this landscape buffer shad not
obstruct the two view corridors designated on Parcel 6. It is
anticipated that most movement within the corridor will take
place at night when them is limited human activity onsite.
Therefore, fencing to restrict human access between the
project site and East San Rafael Shoreline Paris Is mat
proposed.
3.5 = No mitigation is required.
Table 1-1
Impacts and Mitigation Summary
Impacts
Mitigation Agency Responsible
3-51311: Increased numbers of feral cats and other predators could
1.5131-]: Dispose of all waste from industrial and commercial husmes Planning Department
increase the incidence of these species in the Canalways marsh
ses in metal animal proof containers to prevent attraction of
and, therefore, increase predation on the saltmarsh harvest
animals, as well as their entry to the container. Construct
mouse.
parking lot waste containers in a manner to prevent entry of
animals and empty containers regularly to prevent attraction
of animals by odors.
3-5 1443: Earthmoving and grading activities will create dust that could
3.5.1417: Incorporate explicit guidance measures in grading permit and Public Works
move offsite and settle an adjacent marsh and open water habitat
contract documents for the application of water to grading
that could ultimately have adverse impacts on vegetation and
and construction sites to reduce and control dust. Reclaimed
wildlife.
water should be used during construction phases, if available
from CMSA or the las Gallmas Treatment Plant.
3.5-7514: In the event of min, areas not covered by paving, building
areas, or landscaping during project construction will he
susceptible to erosion of surface soils that will deposit sediments
to adjacent marsh areas or to nearshore open water areas of
San Rafael Bay in the short term.
3 -SAW: Construction activities could impact natural plant communities
and wildlife as a result of heavy equipment use, worker
activities, and noise.
IMI IDCB.SPa
3.5 -1 SW: Each phase of project development should have an emsion
control plan for project specific site features, seasonal
contingency plans, and monitoring of the project to ensure
that construction activities do not increase sedimentation in
adjacent marsh areas during grading. For increased
protection of biological resources, develop an erosion control
plan that meets the specifications identified under Mitigation
Measure 3.3-7" through 3.3-1d.
3.5 164,5: During the grading and building construction phases, require
the contractor to alert construction workers to sensitivity of
marsh areas adjacent to the project site. Workers shall be
made aware of the need to avoid surface disturbing activities
in or near the marshes, properly dispose of litter or refuse,
and to avoid trespassing into marsh areas. Require and
enforce use of refuse receptacles during meal breaks,
collection of construction debris, and parking of equipment
away from the marsh boundary during construction and
building phases. Adequate Bagging andtor fencing of the
marsh boundary areas shall be required to prevent
construction crew access and avoid unnecessary damage.
Equipment parking and fueling areas shall be near the center
of the site, away from the marsh. Fuel spills shall not be
Bushed down storm drains but contained and collected for
Proper disposal.
Public Works
Page 23 of 40
Implementation Timing Condition Number Compliance Dale
Dunng construction and
ongoing monitoring
Before permit issuance
Before permit issuance
Planning Department Before permit issuance
Impacts
3.5-174,6: Loss of approximately 42 acres of occasional foregoing habitat
for raptors, including the nnrthem harrier, Cooper's hawk, and
black -shouldered kite.
35 183-7: Revegetation planned for the perimeter landscape buffer area
and building set back area could require a permit from the
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commis
sion (BCDC).
100110CB.SFO
Table 1-1
Impacts and NUtigation Summary
Mitigation
3.5-1746: Rl... parch poles in ;andom
--d- a
Implement Mitigation Measute 3 6-11. No further
mitigation is required.
3.5-18x-7: prepare and submit an application for a BCDC permit to
conduct revegetation work in the lower portions of the land
scape buffer zone that may lie within the BCDC Shoreline
Band.
Page 24 of 401
Agency Responsible Implementation Timing Condition Number Compliance Date
Planning-Wpanmsal ll.f"-acc,PnA,Y
Planning Department Before occupancy
Impacts - - f — — —
Nome Depot
Significant Impacts
3.5-194A: Development of Home Depot could result in reduced habitat
value in the perimeter buffer areas of Parcel 1.
Less -Than -Significant Impacts
3.5 2UP: Approximately 9.7 acres of upland ruderal habitat will be
removed as a result of constructing Home Depot. Essentially
tite same impacts on plane and special -status species for
Shoreline Center would apply to Home Depot; however, the
magnitude of the impact is reduced because of the smaller area
affected.
10011DCB SFO
Tabic 1-1 — -- -- —
Impacts and Mitigation Summary Page 25 of 40
Mitigation Agency Responsible implementation Timing 1 Condition Number I Compliance Dale
3 5 194.9 The plant list of the Home Depot Landscape Concept Plan Planning Department Before occupanc)
should be revised to show the plants listed in the Shoreline
Enhancement Plan. Non native plant species should not be
used in the perimeter buffer planting. Incorporate and
implement the wildlife habitat enhancement objectives of the
Enhancement Plan into the Home Depot plan. Incorporate
the approximate 35,000 square foot triangular area north of
Home Depot into the Home Depot landscape plan and
revegeration efforts adjacent to the salt marsh. Implement
Mitigation Measures 3.5 1a, 3.54, 3.5 ga- -Ad -b, and 3.5-9
in areas applicable to the Home Depot development on
Parcel I. In addition, implement the following mitigations
recommended on a prorated basis with the balance of the
Shoreline Center development:
• Mitigation 5-1a and b (Investig-is
(measures to further
avoid, redum and control stormwater loadings)
µ0pnwat•Fpendi
3.5-201A: Mitigation measures described above for less -than -significant
impacts for the proposed Shoreline Center Master Plan are
applicable to the Home Depot development on Parcel 1 as
well. Home Depot should undertake the following
mitigation measures on Parcel I:
• Litter Control (Mitigation 3.5-131) I
• Construction Dust and Particulate Emissions (Mitigation
3.5.143)
• Erosion of Surface Soils (Mitigation 3.5-134)
• Construction Disturbance (Mitigation 3.5-163)
• Wetland Permit Requirements (Mitigation 3.5.187)
1001IGCB.SFO
Table 1-1
impacts and Mitigalion Summary
Page 26 or 40
Impacts
I
Mitigation
I Agency Responsible
I Implementation Timing I Condition Number I Compliance Dale
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Home Depot
Significant Impacts
3.6-1 In the absence of traffic controls, the existing project site plan
3.6-1a:
Install STOP sign on the egress lanes of the she access drive
Public Works
During construction
may not efficiently accommodate projected Phase 1 Home Depot
(see intersection Nos. I I and l2 on Figures 3.6-1 through
total traffic volumes.
3.6-8).
3 -6 -Ib:
Provide median channelization along the entire length or
Public Works
During construction
Shoreline Parkway
10 encourage proper traffic operation,,
and to provide exclusive lett tum lanes at the Sita access
drives along Shortute Parkway,
Public Works
During construction
3.6 Ic•.
Construct the proposed Shoreline Parkway site access drive
to provide two ingress lanes and two egress lanes, each of
12 -foot minimum width. Standard 24" x 30" (117) and 24" x
Ig" (117A) Caltrans signs should be installed at the approach
to this roadway.
Public Works
During construction
3.6-1d:
IwA A Provide directional signs onsite to guide traffic to I-
590 interchanges.
3.6-2: Temporary increases in traffic during surcharging and
3.6-2:
Restrict trips hauling fill material and moving construction
Public Works
Before permit issuance
construction activities could affect traffic operations an nearby
equipment, material, and workers to the project site to
and during construction
roadways in the project vicinity.
nonpeak morning and afternoon weekday hours or reroute
Ns traffic to avoid congested intersections during the AM
and PM peak hours.
1001IGCB.SFO
Table 1-1
Impacts and Mitigation Summary Page 27 of 40
Impacts I Mitigation Agency Responsible I Implemenlalion Timing I Condition Number I Compliance Date
Less -Than -Significant Impacts
3.6 3: Hame Depot -generated traffic would not result in significant 3,6 -3 -
traffic impacts, however, the addition of Home Depot project
trips would further deteriorate background conditions at the
intersection of Bellam Boulevard/Kerner Boulevard. Ittaddition,
none of the freeway segments under Phase 1 would experience a
significant traffic impact.
Shoreline Cenfer
Significant Impacts
3.64: The projected 815 trips generated by Shoreline Center under 3.6-4
Master Plan conditions, in addition to the 400 trips generated by
Home Depot, would result in 5 more trips beyond the 1,210
trips originally allocated for the project site in the General Plan.
100110C13.SFO
Hume Depot developers shall participate, in coordination
with other approved projects, in a traffic mitigation fee
program, as required by General Plan Policy C-18 (Area
Transportation Improvement Programs), that equitably
distributes the costs of providing necessary offsite traffic
improvements. The following improvements are
recommended to reduce cumulative traffic impacts in the
study area
• A fully actuated traffic signal should be installed at the Public Works Before permit issuance
intersection of Bellam Boulevard and Kerner Boulevard.
The traffic study analyses indicate that, with the
installation of such a signal, this intersection will
operate at level of service C under project conditions.
As per industry standard, the feasibility of such a signal
should be re-evaluated at the time of installation.
• The traffic signal system at the intersections of Bellam
Boulevard with Francisco Boulevard and the 1-580 Public Works Before permit issuance
ramps should be optimized.
Rob", WQ:kx R&WFO pesmil M511"WA
Reduce the total square footage prescribed in the Shoreline Public Works Before permit issuance
Center Master Plan by an amount proportionate to the three
proposed land uses (specialty retail, light industrial, and
business office) to reduce the total number of PM peak hour
trips generated at the site to 1,210.
Impacts
3.6-5: Shoreline Center -generated project traffic would cause a 3.6 5:
deterioration in level of service at the intersections of Bellam
Boulevard/Francisco Boulevard and Bellam Boulevard/Kerner
Boulevard from LOS D and LOS C, respectively, under
background conditions, to LOS F.
1001 IOCB.SFO
Table 1-1
Impacts and Mitigation Summary
Mitigation
Shoreline Center developers shall participate, in coordination
with other approved pmjects, in a traffic mitigation fee
program, as required by General Plan Policy C-18, that
equitably distributes the costs of providing necessary offsite
traffic improvements. The following improvements are
recommended for implementation before development of
Shoreline Center to reduce cumulative traffic impacts in the
study area, however, future developinewii 5h6ietwb Center
will be able to compete with other projects in San Rafael for
critical moves awarded dtmugb the PYP process; it and
when available, and thetdore, could be iwmttur eA'prior to
implementation of thea improvemet t
Page 28 of 40
Agency Responsible Implementation Timing Condition Number Compliance Dale
• Extend Kenner Boulevard to the proposed project site to Public Works Before permit issuance
provide necessary additional capacity to acceptably
service anticipated future traffic volumes. An EIR on
the Kerner Boulevard extension project is budgeted and
planned during the 1992/93 fiscal year-: Iteivw--Fte
;1e«tlfsad This project will be f nded ttoio i»a
available aortic mitigation fees:
Construct the proposed Bellantll-580M.S. 401 Public Works Before permit issuance
interchange hWmvemrncs 4ane4t" per Caltrans and
City of San Rafael design guidelines. As indicated by
the City, it is assumed that this interchange
improvement would improve operating conditions at
study intersections to acceptable levels of traffic
operations. The overall traffic impacts of the Shoreline
Center project and other projects in the vicinity of this
Beilamfl-580/U.S. 401 interchange were included in the
traffic analyses conducted for the San Rafael General
Plan and General Plan EIR and provide the basis for
this requirement. Ph= I of the llellatttil-i901U,S,-ltli
interchange improvements is listed as a panWly fumed
project in Ore City's Punded Ca*l Imprdvemcni
Ned list for 1"2193-
--- ——– Table 1-1— — --
Impacts and Mitigation Summary
Impacts Mitigation Agency Responsible Implementation Tuning
3.6 6 In the absence of traffic controls, the existing project site plan 3.6-6a! Provide amiaimum of at least two and pratambly thru site Public Works Before permit issuance
may not efficiently accommodate projected Shoreline Center access drives, (t g.; the proposed secondary, site Access drive
total traffic volumes. In addition, automobile traffic at the into Parcci 6) omo Kerner Boulevard m alleviale traffic!
project site could conflict with bicycle traffic using the proposed congestion on Shoreline Parkway. It is recommended that
bicycle route along the length of Kerner Boulevard. site a=ss from Kerner Boulevard be provided to all parcels
adjacent to this roadway (Parcels 2, 3, 4, and 5). In
addition, provide two site access driver: from Parcel 6 onto
Shomlia t Parkway to faefthate traffic flow in and oro of this
Parcel.
3.6-6b: Design the intersection(s) of Kerner Boulevard with the Public Works
additional access drives to provide a minimum of two ingress
and two egress lanes, each of 12 feet minimum width.
3-6-6c: Insall a traffic signal at the intersection of Francisco Public Works
Boulevard and Shoreline Parkway (see intersection No. g on
Figures 3.6 1 through 3.6-8). As per Industry standards, the
feasibility of such a signal should be re-evaluated at the time
of Itwa0ation.
3,6-6d! Design the site access drives to intersect Kerner Boulevard at Public Works
a 90 degree angle, with minimum turning radii of 30 feet.
3.6 lx: Public Works
3.6-7; Cnnstructinn rclared tmck and automobile trips may affect traffic 3.67: implement Mitigation Measure 3.6-2.
operations on nearby roadways in the project vicinity.
1001IOCB SFO
Before permit issuance
Before permit issuance
Before permit issuance
Before permit issuance
Page 29 or 40
Condition Number Compliance Date
Impacts
AIR QUALITY
Shoreline Center Hasler Plan
Slgniticant Impacts
3.7-13: Emissions from project -generated traffic would contribute to 3.7=13:
exceedances of the 24-hour PM„ significance criteria standards
in the general project vicinity.
Less -Than -Significant Impacts
3.7-24: Construction activities at the project site could wauld generate 3.7-24:
short-term emissions of PM,o that contribtde to exceed&=of
the 24-hour PM,. standard.
1001 I OCB.SFO
— — — — — -- —Table 1-1 — — -- _
Impacts and Mitigation Summary Page 30 of 40
Miligalion I Agency Responsible I Implementation Tuning I Condition Number I Compliance Date
Increased emissions of PM,• from traffic generated by
Shoreline Center cannot be mitigated to a less -than -
significant level. However, to reduce the number of vehicle
trips generated by the proposed Shoreline Center, and
thereby reduce PM„ levels in the project area, implement
the following transportation control measures:
• Pursuant to proposed BAAQMD regulations to be Planning Department
adopted in late fall 1992, all individual businesses at
Shoreline Center meeting specific criteria (e.g., 100 or
more employees reporting to single work sites between
the hours of 6:30 a.m. and 10 a.m.) should submit and
implement an employer -based trip reduction plan to
reduce commuter trips. These plans might include
employee incentives such as flea -lime work schedules,
reimbursement for employee -purchased transit fares,
and coordinated ride -sharing programs. BAAQMD
estimates that implementation of flex -time programs
would reduce regional emissions by 2 percent.
• Pursuant to the City of San Rafael General Plan policies Planning Department
for new developments, provide additional
Transportation Systems Management Programs for
Shoreline Center. These measures could include car-
pool and vanpool programs, as well as provision of
bicycle parking facilities.
Administer a dust control program during project construe- Public Works
tion. An effective dust control program can reduce PM,•
emissions by up to 50 percent. Implement the following spe-
cific measures recommended by the BAAQMD:
• During clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation, Public Works
use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient
quantities to prevent dust raised from leaving the site.
• After clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation is Public Works
completed: (a) grow a grass cover over the disturbed
area; (b) spread soil binders; or (c) dampen the area
with water such that a surface crust would be formed
and maintained.
Within first year after
occupancy
Before permit issuance
Before permit issuance
Before permit issuance
Before permit issuance
Impacts
3.7-3:
Impacts on ambient CO levels from operation of Shoreline
3.7-3:
Center would not be significant.
3.7.4:
Emissions of nitrogen oxides, total organic gases, and sulfur
3.7A:
oxides from project -generated traffic are not expected to be
significant.
3.7-5:
Assuming that future light industrial development at Shoreline
3.7.5:
Center will meet all applicable BAAQMD requirements for
controlling air contaminant emissions, air quality impacts
associated with these industries would not be significant.
3.7-6:
Increases in emissions from the Central Marin Sanitation Agency
3.7-6:
Waste Water Treatment Plant from the project would not result
in significant air quality impacts.
3.7-7:
The proposed project would be consistent with local and
3.7-7:
regional air quality plans.
3-7-&:
PM, emissions could result is potential adverse health effects.
3.74 -
Home Depot
Significant
Impacts
3.7-99:
Construction of the proposed Home Depot would generate short-
13.7-99
term emissions of PM,• that exceed the 24-hour PM,. standard.
Table 1-1
Impacts and Mitigation Summary
Mitigation
• During construction, use water trucks or sprinkler
systems to wet down all areas of vehicle movement in
the late morning and after work is completed for the
day. Watering frequency would be increased whenever
the wind speed exceeds 15 mph. All madways,
driveways, sidewalks, etc., would be paved as soon as
possible. Building pads would be laid as soon as
possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are
used.
• The contractor or builder should designate a person to
monitor the dust control program and to order increased
watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust
offsite. The person would also respond to citizen
complaints.
No mitigation is required.
No mitigation is required.
No mitigation is required.
No mitigation is required.
No mitigation is required.
No mitigation is requited:
Agency Responsible Implementation Timing Condition Number
Public Works Before permit issuance
Public Works
Administer a dust control program during project 1Public Works
construction similar to the program described for Mitigation
Measure 3.7.12.
3.7-169: Average daily emissions of total organic gases, nitrogen oxides, 3.7-109: No mitigation is required.
PM,,,, and sulfur oxides from Home Depot traffic would be
below BAAQMD significant criteria and would not create a
significant air quality impact.
100110CB.SFO
Before permit issuance
IBefore permit issuance
Page 31 of 40
Compliance Date
Table 1-1
Impacts and Mitigation Summary Page 32 of 40
ImpactsI Mitigation Agency Responsible I Implementation Timing Irn
Condition Nuber I Compliance Date
3.7-1140: Impacts on ambient CO levels from operation of Home Depot 3.7-1110: No mitigation is required
would not be significant.
IMMIAN HEALTH AND SAFETY AND LANDFILL GAS
Shoreline Center Master Plan
Significant Impacts
3-8-1: Landfill gas could accumulate in excavated areas for utilities and 3.8-1a Contractors and utility companies shall submit health and Public Workt
pose a threat of explosion or asphyxiation. safety plans to the Marin County Department of Health and
1001 lOCB.SFO
Before permit issuance
Before permit issuance
buting construction
Before permit issuance
Before permit issuance
During project
const action
Before permit issuance
Human Services and the Cal -EPA Department of Toxic
Substances Control for outharizing utility work and for
monitoring site Operations. No utility work shall be allowed
onsite until the authorizing agency has reviewed the health
and safety plans.
3.8-M Place signs warning of the hazards of entering confined
Public Works
airspaces on all utility covers and vaults.
3.8-14: " lit project applicant stiall notify dij appriipiieie
public Wbrks
enforcement agency of any condition that devalopsduring
utility htsuiladou resulting in cnvimnuieirt l degwwdstion
And/or a public health Lazard;
3.8 2: Penetration of the landfill cover during pile foundation
3.8 22: Require contractors to submit health and safety plans to the
Public Works
construction could expose construction workers to high
Marin County Department of Health and Human Services
concentrations of landfill gas.
and the Cal -EPA Department of Toxic Substances Control.
No penetration of the final cover occur before agency
approval of the health and safety plan.
3.8-2b: Construct buildings with piles as part of the foundation with
Public Works
a specific vapor barrier design for a continuous final cover
incorporating piles. The project applicant Am-aiiar has
proposed alternative methods (i.e.. concrete flab) to provide
a continuous final cover beneath structures.Th
3.8.24; e project applicant Shall notify the appmpriaie
Public Works
enforeea"t agency of any condition that develops during
penetration of the final cover resulting in environmental
degradation an lar4public health hazard.
3.8-3: Onsite excavations could expose equipment operators to landfill
3.8 3a: Require contractors to submit health and safety plans to the
Public Works
gas releases during building pad construction.
Marin County Department of Health and Human Services
and the Cal -EPA Department of Toxic Substances Control.
No building pads shall be constructed before agency
approval of the health and safety plans.
1001 lOCB.SFO
Before permit issuance
Before permit issuance
buting construction
Before permit issuance
Before permit issuance
During project
const action
Before permit issuance
Impacts
Less -Than -Significant Impacts
3.84: Land fill gas could potentially mitigate through onsite parking
surfaces.
3.8-5: Landfill gas could mitigate through building foundations
1001 I IICB.SFO
— — Table I-1
Impacts and Mitigation Summary
Mitigation Agency Responsible Implementation Timing Condition Number
3.8-3b: The final cover after regrading shall comply with the Public Works Before permit issuance
regulations prescribed in 23 CCR Chapter 15 and 14 CCR
Chapter 3.
3.0-3c: The project applicant shall notify the appropriate Public Work
enf ircementageney of any coni that develops during
building pad construction resulting in envimnmedtal
degtadathm atulfor a public health hazard.
3.84a: Construct a detection zone (i.e., high permeability layer with Public Works
vents and sensors where landfill gas could accumulate) under
the asphalt to identify landfill gas emissions.
3.84b. lilt projectjrptieanfctiriesrtdy inipltmertu a landpll gas Public Works
moaitoting plan at the project siie..> Revise this existing plat
W WaShOt for
potential landfill gas emissions through cracks in the asphalt
and joints to concrete structures. Ibis plan shall be submit-
ted to the City of San Rafael Public Works Department
before issuing grading and building permits. The plan shall
include descriptions of maintenance practices. A landfdi gas
3.8 5: The project applicant proposes to construct primary and Public Works
secondary defection zones is building foundations to prevent
landfill gas rmgration. Construct monitoring devices in
detection zones below building foundations. Each separate
area creating subsurface projections (e.g., grade beams) shall
be monitored. The perimeter of the foundations shall pro
vide for landfill gas detection, control, and ventilation. The
sensors for the monitoring devices shall be accessible for
routine testing, calibration, maintenance, repair, and
replacement.
Include additional
information about sensor maintenance in future development
plans.
During construction
Before permit issuance
and during construction
Before permit issuance
and during construction
Before permit issuance
Page 33 of 40
Compliance Date
1001 I OCB.SPO
Table 1-1
Impacts and Mitigation Summary
Page 34 of 40
Impacts
Mitigation
Agency Responsible Implementation Timing Condition Number Compliance Date
3.8.6: Earth movement could cause landfill gas to migrate through
3.8-6a: The pmject applicant has proposed vapor barriers beneath
Public Works Before permit issuance
ruptured floor slaps or gas control features.
the buildings. Construct these a vapor barriers (i.e., low
permeability barrier that restricts landfill gas migration) in
building foundations to withstand anticipated foundation
movements caused by differential settlement and
earthquakes. Designs shall provide a discussion of the
anticipated foundation behavior during differential settlement
and earthquakes and of the flexibility of the vapor barrier,
including connections to pipes, utilities, and piles. The
developer shall provide a discussion of anticipated foundation
behavior as needed above.
3 8-6b'. Include a post-canhquake inspection of all subsurface
Public Works Ongoing monitoring
structures and utility conduits and pipes in the landfill gas
monitoring plan. Monitor utility structures for settlement
damage and strengthen or repair as necessary.
3.9 6c+ the pmject applicant ptolimi to 04A& pasilvevenii
Public Works Before permit issuance
through structure wall$. Protect passive vents and detection
and ongoing monitoring
systems from rupture by earthquake. Venical pipes
travelling through walls shall be isolated from rigid building
elements (i.e., double-wall pipes). The passive vents and
detection systems shall permit periodic inspections for
integrity of the piping systems. Inspection could include
video, pressure, and visual checks.
3.8-7: landfill gas could accumulate in enclosed building spaces and
3.8-7a: The project applicant has proposed to provide positive
Public Works Before permit issuance
pose a threat of explosion or asphyxiation.
vents atiou for utility closets: besign building ventilation
systems to exceed minimum capacities, and include positive
ventilation for all rooms and enclosed spaces regardless of
their functions. Building ventilation could be triggered by
gas sensors. Include gas sensors in building ventilation
systems.
3.8-7b: Include alarms in all buildings. Alarms could include gas
Public Works Before permit issuance
sensors in every confined space. Alarms could also include
silent responses to one detection level with an audible
response at a higher level that is still below life threatening
levels.
3.8-7c: Prepare an operations and emergency plan to protect the
Public Works Before permit issuance
health and safety of workers and the public throughout the
lifetime of the project and submit this plan to the Marin
County Department of Health and Human Services and the
Cal -EPA Department of Toxic Substances Control.
1001 I OCB.SPO
Impacts
3.8-8: Landfill gas could migrate through utility corridors and pose a 3-8 8a-
threat of explosion or asphyxiation -
3.8 8b:
3.8-9: Landfill gas could migrate through surface water drainage 3-8-9:
facilities that attract animals or humans.
3.8-10: Passive vent and gas detection systems in structure walls could 3.8 -10 -
expose the public to condensate.
3.8-11: Operating equipment could rupture the passive vent or detection 3.8-11
systems and release landfill gas or allow condensate to enter
buildings.
3.8-12: Mechanical facilities on building roofs could provide a spark or 3.8-12:
heat source that could ignite landfill gas emitted from passive
vents.
100110CB.SFO
Table 1-1
Impacts and Mitigation Summary Page 35 of 40
Mitigation Agency Responsible ^Implementation Timtng Conditlon Number Compliance Date
The project applicant devaksparcurrently monitors Public Works Before permit issuance
subsurface structures at the site. Continue to monitor all and ongoing monitoring
subsurface monitoring structures at the project site. Submit
a maintenance plan for sealed utility structures to prevent
landfill gas migration to the City of San Rafael Public Works
Department and Marin County Department of Health and
Human Services.
The project applicant proposes to design utilities to enter Public Works
buildings after surfacing and include a vapor barrier at
structure penematlon.
FR gal OR
Construct a fence around surface water drainage discharge Public Works
paints where landfill gas could accidentally be released to
prevent potential contact of landfill gas with humans or
animals. Periodically inspect and maintain the fence.
The project applicant proposes that ppassive vents and Public Works/Marin
detection systems shalt not collect condensate. However, ilf County Department of
condensate collection is unavoidable, public access to collet- Health and Human
tion points shall be restricted, and collection and disposal Services
methods shall be submitted for review to the Marin County
Department of Health and Human Services-- - Oat&-wW
Protect passive vents and detection systems from rupture by Public Works
operating equipment. If vents travel through walls, reinforce
walls with steel plating or similar material. If vents arc not
encased, reinforce or protect them with steel poles or similar
material.
The project applicant proposes that machinery and egtuptrtirm Public works
that generate sparks and Elatuet be located appropriately, and
outside the allucWm, where possible. Separate passive vent
and detection system emission locations from all ignition
sources. Adequate distance shall provide for dilution of
landfill gas with a minimum of 55 percent methane down to
below 5 percent.
Before permit issuance
During construction
Ongoing monitoring
Before permit issuance
and during construction
Before permit Issuance
and during construction
Impacts
3.8-13: The proposed primarylsecondary detection system includes 3-8 13�
materials that may not provide the best seal.
3.8-14: Leaks in the primary detection system could cause gas and 3.8.14
condensate to accumulate in the secondary detection system
adjacent to occupied space.
3.8-15: The secondary and primary detection system pipes could conflict 3.8 -15 -
with other building features and contribute to condensate
production.
3.8-16: Wind powered turbines could draw landfill gas into the primary 3.8.16:
and secondary detection systems.
3.8-17: landfill gas emissions could be highly odorous. 3.8-17:
Table 1-1
Impacts and htiligalion Summary
Mitigation Agency Responsible
The pmjectapplicanthas propasedpassivevents and Public Works
primary and secondary detection zones to prevent len O gas
migration. Construct passive vent and detection zones with
similar materials to provide a secure seal against landfill gas
infiltration at the joints between the horizontal flexible
membrane and vertical pipes.
Design the secondary detection system to provide positive Public Works
pressure to the zone immediately beneath the foundation.
Positive pressure will prevent gas migration into the
secondary zone, reducing the potential for gas and con-
densate accumulation.
Implement Mitigation Measure 3.8-11
Prohibit installation of devices (e.g., chimney caps or similar Public Works
fixtures) that produce a vacuum on the primary and
secondary detection systems.
Implement Mitigations Measures 3.8-1 through 3.8-16 to
reduce the potential for odors from a release or migration of
landfill gas during project construction and operations.
Implementation Timing Condition Number
Before permit issuance
and during construction
Before permit issuance
Before permit issuance
3.8-18: Potential contamination of Mile sutfaro sails:
3.8-18: No mitigation is.mquised.
Home Depot
3.8-1918: The human health and safety and landfill gas impacts associated
Implement Mitigation Measures 3.8-1 thmugh 3.8-17.
with Home Depot would be similar to those described for
13.8-1918:
1 1 1
Shoreline Center.
PUBLIC SERVICES
Shoreline Center Hasler Plan
Significant Impacts
3.9-1! Potential release of landfill gas during construction and
3.9 1: All utilities will be placed in clean fill corridors. Utilities Public Works Before permit issuance
installation of utility lines and other subsurface infrastructure.
requiring deeper embedment than three feet will require veri- and during construction
fication of cap thickness. In accordance with 14 CCR
17796(d)(5), utilities will not be installed in or below the
barrier layer of the final cover. If eitcavationlnto ft waste
is unavoidable. obtain wtilkn pennlWmn from the
appropriate and responsible landfill el mit agwici.
100110CB.SFt7
Page 36 of 40
Compliance Date
Impacts
3.9-23: Need for installation of water service infrastructure.
3.9-34: Need for installation of wastewater infrastructure
3.945: Need for installation of storm drainage facilities.
3.9-56: Need for installation of communications facilities.
Table 1-1
Before permit issuance
Impacts and rliligation Summary
Mitigation
Agency Responsible Implementation Timing Condition Number
3.9-27: The project applicant will be responsible for constructing
Public Works/Marin Before permit issuance
water service infrastructure improvements consistent with
Municipal Water District
MMWD's requirements. Water system design plans will be
submitted concurrently with the building permit application.
The project sponsor will rtlocate, extend, or remove the
existing water main an the site- In addition, implement
Mitigation Measure 3.9-1.
3.9-34: The pmject applicant will provide onsite sewer collection
Public Works/San Rafael Before permit issuance
lines that will connect into existing sanitary sewer facilities
Sanitation District
3.945:
3.9-56:
3.941: Increased levels of service for City maintenance of onsite 3.9-1:
infrastructure because of ground settlement in the project area.
in the project area. In addition, implement Mitigation
Measure 3.9-1.
Tie project applicant will implement a drainage control plan Public Works
Before permit issuance
for the site. This plan will identify all onsite facilities
required to adequately handle surface runoff and should be
submitted to the City's Public Works Department before
issuance of a building permit. The City has specifications
for storm drainage design and erosion control that will be
incorporated into the projects. In addition, implement
Mitigation Measure 3.9-1. See Section 3.3, Hydrology,
Grading and Drainage, for specific storm drainage mitigation
and Section 3.8, Human Health and Safety and landfill Gas,
for a complete discussion on specific mitigations to prevent
landfill gas release during installation of infrastructure.
Implement Mitigation Measure 3.9-1. See Section 3.3, Public Works
Before permit issuance
Hydrology, Grading, and Drainage, and Section 3.8, Human
and during construction
Health and Safety and Landfill Gas, for a complete
discussion on specific mitigations to prevent landfill gas
release during installation of infrastructure.
To reduce the need for maintenance service by the City Public Works
Before permit issuance
Public Works Department, the project will be designed to
and during construction
prevent significant settlement in the project area. Trees and
landscaping will be placed on the project applicant's property
and not the City righsof-way to eliminate landscape
maintenance by the City.
3.9-78: Increased demand for police protection. 3.9-78: Implement the following City of San Rafael General Plan Planning Department/ Before permit issuance
policy before issuance of a building permit: 'No. S-23: Police Department
Safety Review of Development Projects Crime prevention
techniques shall be required in new development. Police
department personnel shall review development applications
to ensure that landscaping, lighting, and building siting and
design reduce the opportunity for crime hazards.'
Page 37 or 40
Compliance Date
Table 1-1
Impacts and Mitigation Summary Page 3Q of 401
Impacts I Mitigation l Agenc-v Responsible I Implementation Tuning I Condition Number I Compliance Date ,
Less--than-Significant Impacts
3 9 92: Inadequate water supply to meet project demands. 3.9$1: The project applicant will obtain discretionary approvals Public Works/Planning Before permit issuance
from the City to receive watenand wW he plased on the Department/Marin
Municipal Water District
available, As a water conservation measure, only 20 percent
of the site will remain open to landscaping which will consist
of indigenous draught -tolerant vegetation consistent with
requirements of the landfill closure plan to reduce irrigation
water demands. In addition, flowmeters will be placed at the
point of entry into the site to monitor leakage in underground
water pipes.
3.9-9: Potential access conflicts between Shoreline Center and adjacent 3.9-9: No mitigation is required.
Past San Rafael Shoreline Park.
3.9-10: Increased generation of wastewater. 3.9-10:
3.9-11: Increased generation of solid waste. 3.9-11:
Nome Depot
Significant Impacts
3.9-12: Alled+sa 3.9.12:
significant impacts on public services for Home Depot would be
identical to Impacts 3.9-1 ^-a�..d-;9^'^' through 3.9-78 identified
for Shoreline Center.
Less -Than -Significant Impacts
No mitigation is required.
No mitigation is required.
Implement Mitigation Measures 3.9-1 through 3.9-79.
3.9.13: Inadequate water supply to meet project demands. 3.9.13: Implement Mitigation Measure 3.9-9.
3.9-1411- Increased generation of wastewater. All other less -than- 3.9 1411 No mitigation is required,
significant impacts on public services for Home Depot would be
identical to Impacts 3.9-9 through 3.9-11 identified for the
Shoreline Center Master Plan.
100110CB.SFO
Impacts
AESTI IETICS
Significant Impacts
,Shoreline Center Master Plan
3.10-1 Development of Shoreline Center would degrade the visual
quality of views to and through the project site from both on and
offsite locations.
Table 1-1
Impacts and Mitigation Stuttmary Page 31 of 40
Mitigation I Agency Responsible I Implementation Timing I Condition Number I Compliance Date
3-10 la: Implement architectural and landscape guidelines prescribed Planning Department Before permit issuance
in the proposed Shoreline Center Master Plan, as well as
mitigation measures identified in Section 3.5 (Biological
Resources) regarding enhancement of the proposed perimeter
landscape buffers consistent with landfill closure plan
requirements to minimize the visual effect of the proposed
development. In order to ensure aesthetic compatibility
between the proposed identification sign and surrounding
environment, the sign shall be designed in accordance with
Design Review Board recommendations.
3.10 -Ib: To reduce the visual dominance of new development on Planning Department Before permit issuance
Parcel 6 from East San Rafael Shoreline Park, investigate the
visual impact of placing future buildings 2 stories of less
further than 25 feet from the property line adjacent to the
park and buildings higher thato 2 stories further data 50 feet
from the Property tine.
!"As adjacent to iiiwjwk, The exact placement of these
buildings shall be determined by the designer/architect of
future Parcel 6 development(s). Prepare alternative site
designs that take into consideration views from future park
users at the top and bottom of the slope adjacent to the
eastern perimeter of the project site. Submit these designs to
the City's Design Review Boast so that the City can help
select the least visually obtrusive designs for the project site.
3.10-1c: Based on this EIR analysis, the final location of the two view Planning Department Before permit issuance
corridors on Parcel 6 shall be considered and decided
through the City design review process. Consider views
from future park users at the top slope adjacent to the eastern
perimeter of the project site when locating these view
corridors.
3.10-1d: Require that plantings in the perimeter landscape buffer adja Planning Department Before permit issuance
cent to Fast San Rafael Shoreline Park are not located within
or obstruct views through the two view corridors designed
for Parcel 6.
100110CB-SFO
Table 1-1
Impacts and Mitigation Summary Page 40 of 40
Impacts
Mitigation Agency Responsible Implementation Timing Condition Number Compliance Dale
3.10-1e:
Require that future development an Parcel 6 stake potential Planning Department Before permit issuance
development and/or prepare photo montages illustrating the
aesthetic effect of new buildings from both the top and
bottom of the slope adjacent to the eastern perimeter of the
project site at Fast San Rafael Shoreline Park.
Less-Tion-Signif icanl Impacts
3.10.2: Development of Shoreline Center would be consistent with City 2:
No mitigation is required.
13.10
design policies.
1 I I 1
/lame Depot
- -
Significant Impacts
3.10.3: Degradation of views to and through Home Depot project site 3.10-3:
implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.10-1a for the
from both on- and offsite locations.
Proposed Shoreline Center Master Plan and Mitigation
Measure 3.5-2 (see Section 3.5. Biological Resources) would
mitigate potential aesthetic impacts from development of
Home Depot.
Less -Than -Significant Impacts
3.10-4: Home Depot would be consistent with local City design policies. 13.10-4:
No mitigation is required.
100110CB-SFO
NOTE: SOME OF THE MITIGATION MEASURES REFERRED TO IN THE ATTACHED MATRIX HAVE BEEN OR
WILL BE MODIFIED WHEN ADOPTED BY THE CITY, OR ALTERNATIVE MITIGATION MEASURES
ADOPTED IN THEIR PLACE, AND IT IS INTENDED THAT, WHERE A MITIGATION MEASURE IS
MODIFIED OR AN ALTERNATIVE MITIGATION MEASURE IS ADOPTED IN PLACE OF A STATED
MITIGATION MEASURE, RESPONSIBILITY FOR MONITORING AND REPORTING FOR SUCH MODI-
FIED OR ALTERNATIVE MEASURE SHALL BE THE SAME AS FOR THE CORRESPONDING MITIGA-
TION MEASURE LISTED IN THE MATRIX.
1W4101111-TWIC
STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE 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)
This Statement of Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
Regarding the Zone Change and Master Plan for the 42+ acre Shoreline Center
Business Park, including Home Depot, sets forth the findings of the City Council of
the City of San Rafael relating to the potential significant environmental effects of the
proposed zone change and master plan and implementing actions ("Project
Approvals"). Wherever the word "project" is used below in this Statement, it refers
to the Project Approvals.
I. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL FRAMEWORK AND PROCESS.
The proposed project was recommended for priority status based upon a
competition pursuant to the City's Priority Projects Procedure established to
implement General Plan Policy C-3 Timing of Development of Transportation
Improvements, Policy C-7 Proiects in a Circulation Impacted Area, and Program C -B
Proiect Approval Procedure in Traffic Impacted Areas. In general, the Priority
Projects Procedure was established to provide a system for the City Council to select
among various alternative projects (within a circulation impacted area) to determine
which project ranked highest based on the criteria established pursuant to the General
Plan. The Priority Projects Procedure was necessary because only a limited number
of projects within a given circulation impacted area can be built unless and until major
roadway improvements are constructed. Within the Bellam Interchange area (the
circulation impacted area within which the project is located), the City Council
concluded that the proposed project qualified for priority on the basis of its high tax
generating use. Accordingly, in May 1991 the City Council, pursuant to Resolution
No. 8396 selected the proposed Home Depot project as a priority project in the
Bellam Interchange area, because it achieves the Priority Projects' goals and
obligations of the City, based on its high tax generation use and improved access to
the Shoreline Park. The foregoing Priority Projects Procedure, including the selection
of the proposed Home Depot project pursuant to that procedure, shall be referred to
herein as the "Priority Project Procedure."
-1-
Thereafter, applications were filed with the City of San Rafael by the owner of
the Shoreline Center Business Park for a master plan for development of Shoreline
Center, a 42 + acre business park, and development of a 102,190 square feet Home
Depot with an Outdoor Garden Center with 22,200 square feet on approximately 11
acres of the Shoreline Center. The owner also applied for a zoning change from PD
(Planned Development) and LI/O (Light Industrial/Office) to a new PD zone for the
entire site with new development standards (Z90-5), a tentative map for a 6 -lot
subdivision (TS91-5), a Use Permit for development in the PD zone (UP91-36), a
Development Agreement (DA92-1), and an Environmental and Design Review Permit
for the Home Depot portion of the project (ED91-99). An Initial Study pursuant to
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was prepared by CH2M HILL,
under contract to the City, which showed that the proposed Shoreline Center/Home
Depot project might produce significant environmental effects and that an EIR would
be required for the project. The process followed by the City to comply with the
California Environmental Quality Act is described in Resolution No. , a
"Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Rafael Certifying the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the Shoreline Center, a 42 + Acre Business Park,
Including Home Depot, Located at 1615 East Francisco Boulevard" ("FEIR
Certification").
In addition to the requirement of CEQA and the Guidelines concerning FEIR
Certification, CEQA and the Guidelines provide that in connection with approving or
carrying out of a project for which a FEIR has been completed, that certain findings
be made.
This Statement sets forth the City Council's findings relating to the potential
significant environmental effects of the Project Approvals and all actions undertaken to
implement the Project Approvals. The findings are organized to follow the headings
used in the FEIR. Unless otherwise indicated in this Statement, each mitigation
measure identified in the FEIR has been incorporated into and made a requirement of
the Project Approvals.
California Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 requires that the City
prepare and adopt a mitigation monitoring plan and reporting program for the project
on which mitigation measures have been imposed to ensure compliance with, and
effectiveness of, the mitigation measures as adopted. The draft Shoreline Center
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP") considered by the City
Council in connection with the adoption of this Statement is designed to ensure that
mitigation measures are implemented in accordance with the specifications and timing
set forth within the MMRP. Because the MMRP for the Project Approvals includes
detailed mitigation specifications setting forth performance standards and criteria that
must be met for the developer to demonstrate that mitigation measures have been
completed, the MMRP formed part of the basis for the City's findings that potential
-2-
impacts are mitigated by the changes or alterations required in or incorporated into the
project.
II. FINDINGS ON SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE
PROJECT AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS.
The "Impacts" described below are those significant impacts described in the
FEIR, and the "Mitigation" described below is the mitigation recommended by the
FEIR for the corresponding Impact. In most cases, the Project Approvals will require
the "Mitigation" recommended by the FEIR. In a few cases, the "Mitigation"
recommended by the FEIR was modified or altered in the condition and is designated
"Alternate Mitigation." The numbering system for Impacts and Mitigation correspond
to the numbering system used for significant impacts and mitigation in the FEIR. In
some cases the numbering will not be sequential. For example, the Impact following
3.1-2 is Impact 3.1-7. The reason for this is that the Impacts and associated
Mitigation described in these Findings is limited to significant impacts identified in the
FEIR as required by CEQA. The impacts which are not listed are those which are
less -than -significant. The designation "SC" means that the applicable Impact or
Mitigation pertains to the Shoreline Center portion of the project. The designation
"HD" means that the applicable Impact or Mitigation pertains to the Home Depot
portion of the project.
A. PLAN REVIEW.
Findings. The EIR evaluated both the Shoreline Center Master Plan and the
Home Depot Project for conformance and consistency with applicable goals,
objectives, and policies. The FEIR identified potentially significant adverse land use
effects of the project and identified mitigation measures for each of these effects.
These effects and mitigation measures are listed below. Incorporation into the project
of the mitigation measures identified by the FEIR results in changes and alterations in
the project which avoid or substantially lessen these significant effects. It is likely that
no significant plan review impacts will remain unmitigated. However, to the extent
that any plan review impacts would remain unmitigated, such impacts are acceptable
due to overriding considerations because expected project benefits outweigh any
unavoidable adverse environmental effects as set forth in Section IV of this Statement.
Impact 3.1 -1 -SC: Conformance with the City of San Rafael General Plan 2000.
Land Use Policy 21 requires building heights not to exceed 3
stories or 36 feet where more varied setbacks and increased
landscaping will result. The Shoreline Center Master Plan
would allow buildings not to exceed 40 feet.
-3-
Mitigation 3.1 -1 -SC: Reduce the maximum permitted height for all
Shoreline Center buildings from 40 feet to 36 feet in accordance with the City's
building height policy.
Rationale for Findings: The Shoreline Center Master Plan as revised in
response to Mitigation 3.1 -1 -SC conforms to the applicable City policy limiting
buildings in this zoning district to 36 feet.
Imn_ act 3.1 -2 -SC: Shoreline Center Master Plan does not conform with the City's
environmental and design review requirements prescribing a
minimum of 20% landscaping in areas zoned light
industrial/office.
Mitigation 3.1 -2 -SC: Amend the proposed Shoreline Center Master Plan to
require a minimum landscape standard of 20% of the project site.
Rationale for Findings: The Shoreline Center Master Plan as revised in
response to Mitigation 3.1 -2 -SC conforms to the City's environmental and design
review requirements prescribing a minimum of 20% landscaping in this zoning
district.
Impact 3.1-7-1-11): The Home Depot Project does not conform to the City's
environmental and design review requirements prescribing a
minimum of 20% landscaping in areas zoned light
industrial/office.
Mitigation 3.1-7-1-11): Review and, if necessary, revise the Home Depot
Landscape Concept Plan to ensure that 20% of Parcel One is landscaped.
Rationale for Findings: The Shoreline Center Master Plan as revised in
response to Mitigation 3.1 -7 -HD conforms to the City's environmental and design
review requirements prescribing a minimum of 20% landscaping in this zoning
district.
B. GEOLOGY. SOILS. AND SEISMICITY.
Findings. The FEIR identified potentially significant adverse effects of the
project pertaining to geology, soils and seismicity and identified mitigation measures
for the impacts. Incorporation into the project of the mitigation measures identified by
the FEIR results in changes and alterations in the project which avoid or substantially
lessen these significant impacts. In addition, some of the specified impacts and/or
changes or alterations identified in mitigation measures are within the responsibility or
jurisdiction of a public agency other than the City, and such changes can and should
me
be adopted by such other agency. It is likely that no significant soils, geology, or
seismicity impacts will remain unmitigated. However, to the extent that any soils,
geology, or seismicity impacts would remain unmitigated, such impacts are acceptable
due to overriding considerations because expected project benefits outweigh any
unavoidable adverse environmental effects as set forth in Section IV of this Statement.
Imn_ act 3.2 -la -SC: Grading and excavation activities could result in dust and noise
during construction, offsite impacts from material
transportation or disposal, and penetration of the landfill cap.
Mitication 3.2 -la -SC: Develop an erosion and dust control plan as
required by the City's Grading Permit and Environmental and Design Review
Permit. The Project sponsor or contractor should submit this plan to the City for
approval before the issuance of a grading permit by the City. No construction
shall penetrate the clay liner without written permission from the appropriate and
responsible landfill closure agencies. Incorporate specific recommendations for
grading activities from geotechnical reports prepared for future projects at
Shoreline Center into their development plans.
Mitigation 3.2 -lb -SC: Prior to approval of the Final Subdivision Map,
prepare a revised and final grading plan demonstrating that grading activities
shall not penetrate the landfill cap or otherwise compromise its integrity.
Rationale for Findings: It is standard practice to provide dust and erosion
control plans as a condition to commencement of grading activities on the site.
Standard practices have developed which significantly reduce dust and erosion. The
project site is the former San Quentin Disposal Site ("SQDS"). The SQDS accepted
debris from 1968 to 1987 but is no longer in operation. The western portion of the
SQDS did not accept debris. SQDS was deemed closed in June 1992 by the
California Integrated Waste Management Board ("CIWMB") in accordance with Title
23, California Code of Regulations. The site is subject to conditions of the Waste
Discharge Requirements issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board
("RWQCB") and the Solid Waste Facilities Permit issued by the CIWMB. Activities
associated with the former landfill, its closure, and post -closure maintenance are
regulated by the CIWMB and their Local Enforcement Agency (Marin County
Department of Health and Human Services) and the RWQCB. These agencies are
also responsible for reviewing post -closure development to ensure that the public
health and environment are protected. These mitigation measures will insure that the
landfill cap will not be penetrated by construction activities unless these agencies give
written permission. Since these agencies are expert in the maintenance of and
construction activities on former landfills, they will be able to assure that the integrity
of the landfill cap is maintained.
5-2
Impact 3.2 -2 -SC: Differential settlement of the refuse and underlying Bay mud
could adversely affect the landfill cover and proposed
structures of the proposed project site.
Mitigation 3.1 -2 -SC: Incorporate the specific results, findings, and
recommendations regarding settlement from geotechnical reports prepared for
future projects at Shoreline Center into the project development plans. All new
construction should be structurally supported on pile foundations. However,
alternative foundation designs may be reasonable for this site if they can meet all
applicable regulatory and technical requirements for construction on a closed
landfill to protect public health and safety and the environment. Articulated
ramps should be constructed at all building entrances and exits. Foundation piles
should have bituminous coating to reduce loading of landfill materials.
Rationale for Findincs: Additional geotechnical reports prepared for specific
projects will provide the factual basis upon which to select the appropriate foundation
type in light of the settlement data and engineering criteria. Specific foundation
designs recommended in site and project -specific geotechnical reports for future
developments will be incorporated into construction plans to significantly reduce
potential impacts associated with differential settlement at the project site.
Impact 3.2 -3 -SC: Potential slope instability around the perimeter of the proposed
development could adversely affect the landfill cover and
proposed structures at the project site.
Mitigation 3.2 -3 -SC: If future activities alter existing onsite and adjacent
slopes, prepare a subsequent slope stability and deformation analysis and
incorporate the results, findings, and recommendations of this analysis into
project development plans.
Rationale For FindinLys: It is standard practice to perform slope stability
analysis where slopes are being altered and/or structures or site improvements are
being placed adjacent to slopes. Factors of safety for both static and earthquake
conditions will be computed. Stable slope configurations will be incorporated into
construction plans to substantially lessen the potential for slope failures to occur.
Impact 3.2 -4 -SC: Significant seismic activity could induce slope instability or
cause structural damage of buildings or other facilities at the
project site.
Mitication 3.2 -4 -SC: New construction for the project should conform to
the most recent editions of the California Code of Regulations Title 24 (Building
Standards), the Uniform Building Code (Seismic Zone 4 Standards), and other
M
local seismic design and safety standards as appropriate. For example, piles
should be designed to resist forces associated with seismic loading.
Rationale For Findings: Earthquake -resistance standards are always
incorporated in designs in California; this should be considered standard engineering
practice. Conformance with applicable State and local seismic standards will
significantly reduce potential structural impacts resulting from seismic activities.
Impact 3.2 -5 -SC: Potential soil erosion hazards are addressed in Section 3.3-3,
Hydrology, Grading, and Drainage.
Mitigation 3.2 -5 -SC: Implement Mitigation Measures 3.3-2a through 3.3-
2d in Section 3.3, Hydrology, Grading, and Drainage.
Rationale For Findings: See discussion in connection with Mitigation Measures
3.3-2a through 3.3-2d in Section 3.3, Hydrology, Grading, and Drainage.
Imp_ act 3.2 -7 -HD: Grading and excavation on Parcel 1 could result in dust and
noise during construction, offsite impacts from material
transportation or disposal, and penetration of the landfill cap.
Mitigation 3.2 -7 -HD: Implement Mitigation 3.2 -la -SC and 3.2 -lb -SC. In
addition, implement the following general measures recommended in the
Foundation Investigation for Home Depot (Law/Crandall, 1993):
To provide support for paving, the existing upper fill soils should be
overexcavated and replaced as properly compacted fill. After clearing the site,
soils in areas to receive fill and in areas where the required cut is less than 1 foot
should be excavated to a depth of 1 foot below the existing grade. After
excavating as recommended, the exposed soils should be carefully inspected to
verify removal of all unsuitable deposits. Next, the exposed soils should be
scarified to a depth of 6 inches, brought to optimum moisture content, and rolled
with heavy compaction equipment.
After compacting the exposed soils, all required fill should be placed in loose lifts
not more than 8 inches in thickness and compacted to at least 90 percent. The
moisture content of the onsite soils at the time of compaction should be at or up
to about 2 percent above optimum moisture content.
The reworking of the upper soils and the compaction of all required fill should be
observed and tested. Observation and testing should include:
-7-
• Observe the clearing and grubbing operations to assure that all
unsuitable materials have been properly removed.
• Observe the exposed subgrade in areas to receive fill and in areas
where excavation has resulted in the desired finished subgrade,
observe proofrolling, and delineate areas requiring overexcavation.
• Perform visual observation to evaluate the suitability of onsite and
import soils for fill and placement; collect and submit soil samples
for required or recommended laboratory testing where necessary.
• Perform field density and compaction testing to determine the
percentage of compaction achieved during fill placement.
• Monitor the installation of pile foundations.
Rationale For Findings: See discussion concerning Mitigation 3.2 -la -SC and
3.2 -lb -SC. Specific mitigation measures prescribed to reduce impacts attributable to
grading and earthwork activities are recommended in the Report of Foundation
Investigation for the Proposed Home Depot Retail Store. This report, dated January
18, 1993, was prepared by Law/Crandall, Inc., an independent geotechnical,
environmental, and construction materials consultant to Home Depot, and is on file
and available for public review as part of the project record at the City of San Rafael
Planning Department. The scope and objectives of this study were to recommend
appropriate building foundation systems and their design parameters, evaluate the
feasibility of site surcharging, and provide recommendations regarding earthwork and
grading, retaining wall design, sign pylon design, and paving design for parking and
truck access. These recommendations were based on the results of field explorations,
laboratory tests, and engineering analyses, and will be incorporated into Home
Depot's project plans.
Impact 3.2 -8 -HD: Over the next 50 years, it is estimated that Parcel 1 would
settle approximately 3 to 3 1/2 feet and could adversely affect
the landfill cover and structures such as roads, utilities, and
the Home Depot building.
Mitigation 3.2 -8 -HD: Implement Mitigation Measure 3.2-2. In addition,
implement the following recommendations for structural foundations from the
Foundation Investigation for Home Depot (Law/Crandall, 1993):
To provide support for building, building floor slab, and the loading dock
retaining walls, use driven pilings extending into the underlying firm older Bay
mud. Extend prestressed concrete piles through the refuse and soft younger Bay
10
mud and into the underlying firm older Bay mud soils to a depth of at least 145
feet below existing grade. Check the compressive and tensile strength of pile
sections to verify structural capacity of the piles. Apply a slip layer compound or
equivalent, at least 3/8 inches in thickness, to the top 105 feet of all piles to
reduce the effects of boundary loading from the weight of existing soil and debris
fill. Piles in groups should be spaced at least 3 feet on centers.
At least 10 indicator piles shall be driven onsite prior to foundation construction
to evaluate driving resistance and installation procedures. A wave equation pile
driveability analysis should be performed on proposed piles. In addition, a
detailed pile installation plan shall be developed prior to pile installation.
Sign pylons should also be supported on driven pilings; however, this piling does
not need to extend into the underlying older Bay mud if settlement of the pylon
with the ground surface can be tolerated. The piling for the sign pylon shall not
be coated with a slip compound.
All exterior slabs and walls should be free floating structures separated from the
pile -supported buildings. At all store entrances, design adjacent exterior slabs as
ramps hinged to the pile -supported building at one end and supported by footing
on the other end. Design the footing supporting hinge slabs relatively rigid to
withstand differential settlement that may cause a tripping hazard. The footing's
structural capacity should be sufficient to allow the footing to open an
unsupported length of at least 40 feet.
All utilities that span from on -grade support to the pile -supported building should
be designed with loops, slip joints, or expansion links to safely withstand
predicted onsite settlements. Utilities should be installed above the clay barrier
layer (see Mitigation Measure 3.9 -1 -SC).
Rationale For Findings: See discussion concerning Mitigation Measure 3.2 -2 -
SC. Specific mitigation measures prescribed to reduce impacts associated with site
settlement attributable to the Home Depot project are recommended in the January
1993 Law/Crandall document entitled Report of Foundation Investigation for the
Proposed Home Depot Retail Store. These recommendations are the result of
independent engineering analyses performed by a separate consultant and will be
incorporated into Home Depot's project plans. This report is available for review at
the City of San Rafael Planning Department. See the discussion concerning
Mitigation Measure 3.2 -7 -HD.
Impact 3.2 -9 -HD: Significant seismic activity could induce slope instability or
cause structural damage of buildings or other facilities at the
project site.
21
Mitigation 3.2 -9 -HD: Implement Mitigation Measure 3.2-4.
Rationale For Findings: See discussion regarding Mitigation Measure 3.2 -4 -SC
above.
Impact 3.2 -10 -HD: Project construction could cause soil erosion.
Mitigation 3.2 -10 -HD: Implement Mitigation Measure 3.2-5.
Rationale For Findins: See discussion regarding Mitigation Measure 3.2 -5 -
SC.
C. HYDROLOGY. GRADING. AND DRAINAGE.
Findings. The FEIR identified potentially significant adverse effects of the
project pertaining to hydrology, grading, and drainage and identified mitigation
measures for the impacts. Incorporation into the project of the mitigation measures
identified by the FEIR results in changes and alterations in the project which avoid or
substantially lessen these significant impacts. In addition, some of the specified
impacts and/or changes or alterations identified in mitigation measures are within the
responsibility or jurisdiction of a public agency other than the City, and such changes
can and should be adopted by such other agency. It is likely that no significant
hydrology, grading or drainage impacts will remain unmitigated. However, to the
extent that any hydrology, grading, or drainage impacts would remain unmitigated,
such impacts are acceptable due to overriding considerations because expected project
benefits outweigh any unavoidable adverse environmental effects as set forth in
Section IV of this Statement.
Impact 3.3 -1 -SC: Larger onsite surface water runoff volumes and higher peak
flows.
Mitigation 3.3 -la -SC: Approval of future Phase 2 development at
Shoreline Center shall be contingent upon the successful completion of proposed
maintenance excavation activities at the City stormwater pond. If pond
maintenance is not complete at the time Shoreline Center starts to develop, future
projects shall be approved in phases once it can be demonstrated that there is
adequate capacity in the City's pond to accommodate projected stormwater flows.
Mitigation 3.3 -lb -SC: Construct swales and landscape upper areas at the
perimeter of the project. Install tile underdrains or other acceptable devices
beneath irrigated areas in the landscape buffers to ensure adequate drainage.
Design swales to connect existing catchbasins.
-10-
Mitigation 3.3 -lc -SC: Provide an engineer -designed storm drainage
system for Shoreline Center and the associated parking lots. This system will
discharge to the retention pond, the drainage channel adjacent to Parcels 1 and 3
leading to the City pond, and San Rafael Bay. Check all outfall pipes for
available capacity to convey 100 -year storm design flows.
If it is necessary to increase outfall capacity, either replace an existing outfall with
a larger size or install any new outfall pipes adjacent to existing outfalls in order
to take advantage of existing outfall protection and to minimize the new areas of
disturbance in the retention pond on the Canalways marsh. Apply for necessary
permits, including, but not necessarily limited to, an Army Corps of Engineers
Nationwide Permit.
Rationale for Findings: There is probably existing capacity in the City
stormwater retention pond which could be used to hold increased stormwater runoff
from the Shoreline Center Project. However, since the exact existing capacity for any
given storm event is not known, the calculations in the EIR assume that the pond
would be at full capacity and that incremental increased runoff directed to the pond
would overtop the pond levees and flow into the adjacent marsh. These "worst-case
scenario" computations show that the increased water levels in the marsh attributable
to increased Shoreline Center stormwater runoff from Phase 1 (Home Depot) is
between 0.2 inches in a 10 -year storm to 0.3 inches in a 100 -year storm. These
incremental increases in runoff are insignificant compared to the current volume of
stormwater which would flow into the marsh under these storm events even without
construction of Phase 1 of the project. Accordingly, Phase 1 may proceed without
any restoration of pond capacity. Mitigation Measure 3.3 -la -SC will allow a phase to
develop only when it can be demonstrated that any further increase in incremental
stormwater runoff would not exceed the "worst-case scenario" either because more
precise calculations demonstrate that there is existing capacity within the pond or that
the pond's capacity has been restored sufficiently to accommodate incremental
increased flows or that any further incremental increased flows would be insignificant.
Construction of the swales will limit infiltration of rainwater into the landfill.
Installation of drainage facilities beneath the irrigated areas will have the same effect
with respect to irrigation water. The design requirements should be considered
standard engineering practice to collect and channel stormwater runoff to the
designated discharge points. The requirement to check and, if necessary, increase
outfall capacity should also be considered standard engineering practice so that the
drainage system will work as designed.
Impact 3.3 -2 -SC: Increased potential for soils erosion and decrease in surface
runoff water quality during construction.
-11-
Mitigation 3.3 -2a -SC: Cover graded areas with mulch and revegetate as
soon as feasible after grading has been completed. Complete grading and
revegetation during the dry season May through October) or upon approval by
the City Engineer. Beep construction as far away from the edges of the site as
possible.
MitiLration 3.3 -2b -SC: Apply for applicable grading permits from the City
of San Rafael.
Mitieation 3.3 -2c -SC: During site grading, utilize erosion and sediment
control measures to prevent sediment loading to the surrounding surface waters
according to City Standards.
MitiL-ation 3.3 -2d -SC: Apply for a Notice of Intent to be covered under
the State of California National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
general permit for construction.
Rationale for Findings: The above measures should be considered standard
engineering practice and will prevent water quality degradation by trapping silt which
is eroded from newly graded areas. These measures have proven successful in
reducing or eliminating effects to water quality due to sediment and erosion brought
on by development during the construction phase. Mitigation Measure 3.3 -2a -SC
would minimize erosion at the project site because it precludes construction during the
rainy season when the potential for erosion is greatest. Mitigation Measure 3.3 -2b -
SC, involving revegetation after grading is complete, would further reduce
sedimentation by trapping silt with a layer of vegetative cover before these sediments
can be transported offsite by surface water. Mitigation Measure 3.3 -2c -SC would
ensure that the project complies with all terms and conditions of the City of San
Rafael's requirements for grading activities as required by their grading permits.
Compliance with City standards for implementing erosion and sediment control
measures (Mitigation Measure 3.3 -2c -SC) would further help to reduce potential water
quality degradation due to erosion and sedimentation. These measures, including use
of barriers or sedimentation basins during construction and frequent site inspections to
ensure proper implementation, are considered standard engineering practice.
Mitigation Measure 3.3 -2d -SC, involving application for a Notice of Intent as part of
the NPDES general permit for construction, is required of all projects in the State of
California larger than five acres in size.
Impact 3.3 -3 -SC: Increased loading of pollutants to surface runoff and
degradation of water quality after construction.
Mitigation 3.3 -3a -SC: Construct small oil and grease separators in parking lot
areas to collect petroleum compounds, grease, and other potentially contaminated
-12-
sediments before stormwater is discharged offsite. Because the majority of
pollutants found in urban runoff are the product of only the first flush of
precipitation (generally defined as the first 30 minutes of runoff), design the on
and grease separators to accommodate the six-month storm event. Once storm
flows exceed the six-month design flow, they will bypass the oil and grease
separators. Maintain oil and grease separators by implementing a monthly
monitoring program to determine when accumulated sediments shall be removed
for disposal at an appropriate disposal site.
Mitigation 3.3 -3b -SC: As part of the requirements of the NPDES general permit
for construction, implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan to control
accidental leaks or spills of materials that may contain urban pollutants that could
enter the stormdrain system. Recommended measures include regularly sweeping
parking lots, covering loading docks, and implementing an employee education
program. The RWQCD is responsible for monitoring and enforcing this plan.
Rationale for Findings: Because petroleum products are lighter than water,
traps can be designed to capture these pollutants and hold them until they can be
collected or removed from the site. The majority of pollutants found in the urban
runoff are the product of only the first 30 minutes of runoff, so oil and grease
separators can be designed to accommodate the six-month storm event. After this first
30 minutes of runoff, excess storm runoff will bypass the separators. Additional
measures required by the NPDES permit requirements would further ensure that the
project will have insignificant long-term degradation effects on water quality.
Impact 3.3 -5 -HD: The diameter of the drainage pipe receiving flows from a 15 -
inch pipe for Home Depot is only 12 inches.
Mitigation 3.3 -5 -HD: Replace existing 12 -inch stormwater pipe with a 15 -
inch or larger diameter pipe. Throughout the drainage system design, it is
recommended that downstream system pipe diameters not decrease.
Rationale for Findings: Increasing downstream pipe size to meet design criteria
will ensure that the stormwater runoff from the Home Depot site will be
accommodated and directed as intended.
D. WATER OUALITY IMPACTS.
Findings. The FEIR identified potentially significant adverse effects of the
project pertaining to water quality and identified mitigation measures for the impacts.
Incorporation into the project of the mitigation measures identified by the FEIR results
in changes and alterations in the project which avoid or substantially lessen these
significant impacts. In addition, some of the specified impacts and/or changes or
-13-
alterations identified in mitigation measures are within the responsibility or jurisdiction
of a public agency other than the City, and such changes can and should be adopted
by such other agency. It is likely that no significant water quality impacts will remain
unmitigated. However, to the extent that any water quality impacts would remain
unmitigated, such impacts are acceptable due to overriding considerations because
expected project benefits outweigh any unavoidable adverse environmental effects as
set forth in Section IV of this Statement.
Impact 3.4 -1 -SC: Project development could provide a pathway for groundwater
or leachate migration and increase the rate of leachate
generation that could cause adverse effects on groundwater or
surface water quality.
Mitigation 3.4 -la -SC: Comply with San Francisco Regional Water Quality
Control Board criteria for pile construction on landfills. These criteria are
included in Appendix F.
Miti_eation 3.4 -lb -SC: Follow recommendations by Brunsing Associates,
Inc. (1992) to prevent leakage in underground pipes. The recommendations
include using flowmeters to perform regular water balances so that leaks can be
detected and repaired. Use indigenous species in landscaping to reduce the
demand for applied water.
MitiL,ation 3.4 -lc -SC: Any grading and construction on the project site
shall require the express written approval of the appropriate regulatory landfill
closure agencies pursuant to the Stipulated Order of Compliance and Agreement
between the LEA, Cal -Pox, Inc., and SQDS (the permitted operator of the SQDS
facility), and any conditions imposed by these agencies.
In addition, the project applicant shall comply with all performance standards
and regulatory requirements under Title 14, CCR, Article 7.8, Section 17796,
Post -Closure Land Use, and the Stipulated Order of Compliance and Agreement
to ensure that all post -closure activities will not cause a potential threat to public
health and safety and the environment. All future permits and relevant reports
and documents submitted to the appropriate landfill closure agencies shall also be
filed with the City of San Rafael Planning Department.
Rationale for Findings: Development over a closed landfill is not an
uncommon occurrence and the RWQCB has developed technical criteria for installing
foundation piles or similar structures through and below waste contained in a closed
solid waste disposal unit (e.g.: landfill). These criteria are specifically established to
preclude adverse water quality impacts that could result from inappropriate or
improper pile construction that could provide a pathway for groundwater or leachate
-14-
migration through the landfill. Recommendations to prevent leaking underground
pipes that could contribute to leachate generation will ensure that any leaks are
immediately detected and repaired before these leaks could cause adverse effects on
groundwater or surface water quality (Brunsing Associates, Inc., letter to A. Millican,
CH2M HILL, January 21, 1992). These recommendations include using flow meters
at the point of entry onto the site, at all building locations, and at irrigation areas to
perform regular water balances so that leaks can be detected and repaired. In
addition, landscape areas will use indigenous species which have minimal irrigation
water demands. These recommendations will be incorporated into the project plans of
future developments at Shoreline Center.
Issues related to former landfill operations, its closure, and post -closure
maintenance at the SQDS are subject to the requirements of the RWQCB, CIWMB,
and LEA and the provisions of a Stipulated Order of Compliance and Agreement
(hereafter referred to as Order) entered into between the LEA, Cal -Pox, Inc, and
SQDS in August 1992. Compliance with these agencies' applicable regulatory
requirements and standards will ensure that the project will not cause a significant
adverse effect on groundwater or surface water quality. As prescribed in Mitigation
Measure 3.4 -lc -SC, all future permits or relevant reports and documents submitted to
the appropriate landfill closure agencies will be filed with the City of San Rafael
Planning Department and will become part of the project record.
In September 1986, the RWQCB adopted Waste Discharge Requirements
(WDRs) Order No. 86-70 which specifies a self-monitoring program to protect surface
and groundwater quality from degradation. The specific criteria of WDR No. 86-70
impose requirements for post -closure maintenance to assure that there are no toxic or
other harmful substances present in concentrations or quantities which will cause
deleterious effects on aquatic biota, wildlife, or water fowl.
In addition to the RWQCB's oversight, SQDS is also subject to the regulatory
oversight and inspection of the CIWMB. The CIWMB regulates the provisions of
Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) pertaining to water quality. The
CIWMB also exercises independent jurisdiction pursuant to Title 14 of CCR, Article
7.8, to ensure that closed landfills do not create potential hazards to the public health
or environment.
Lastly, SQDS entered into the Order with the LEA which expressly required
SQDS to comply, and SQDS agrees to comply, with all federal, state, and local
requirements and enactments. In addition to monitoring and reporting requirements of
the RWQCB, SQDS must have review and comment by the LEA prior to construction
of post -closure land use improvements.
-15-
Impact 3.4 -2 -HD: Leachate impacts to water quality associated with
development of Home Depot would be similar to
those described for Shoreline Center.
Miti_eation 3.4 -2 -HD: Implement Mitigation Measures 3.4-1a through 3.4-
1c.
Rationale for Findings: See discussion in connection with Mitigation Measures
3.4-1c through 3.4-1c.
E. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Findings. The FEIR identified potentially significant adverse effects of the
project pertaining to biological resources and identified mitigation measures for the
impacts. Incorporation into the project of the mitigation measures identified by the
FEIR results in changes and alterations in the project which avoid or substantially
lessen these significant impacts. It is likely that no significant biological resources
impacts will remain unmitigated. However, to the extent that any biological resources
impacts would remain unmitigated, such impacts are acceptable due to overriding
considerations because expected project benefits outweigh any unavoidable adverse
environmental effects as set forth in Section IV of this Statement.
Impact 3.5 -1 -SC: Approximately 42 acres of upland ruderal
vegetation will be removed during project site
grading and development.
Mitigation 3.5 -la -SC: Increase the width of the landscape buffers on
Parcels 1 and 6 to cover the area from the building setback across the project site
property boundary to the edge of the approximate 20 -foot -wide City -owned
property at the toe of the landfill slope. Revegetation should avoid encroachment
on the area currently used as a City maintenance road and the existing drainage
Swale leading from the City stormwater pond to the outfall line. These efforts
will provide a continuation of the landscaping plan proposed in the Park Master
Plan for the area adjacent and north of Parcel 6. All revegation efforts shall be
prepared and implemented in consultation with and approved by professional
consultants specializing in habitat restoration.
Before revegation, a qualified wildlife biologist or ecologist should establish the
lower limit of revegation to avoid any impact on existing habitat that may be used
by special -status species. The lower limit of the revegation zone should be
established with steel stakes and flagging. Removal of existing native vegetation
shall be avoided. Generally, the upper margin of healthy pickleweed and a 10 -
foot buffer shall be used for the lower limit of any landscape improvements.
g[1'
Revise Section AA (Marsh Edge) on Figure MP -4 showing the Master Plan Site
Design Standards to show the revised landscape buffer in order to improve
habitat on the City -owned band between the south shore of the Canalways Marsh
and the building setback line of Parcels 1 and 6 (see Figure 3.55). Prepare a
restoration plan and consider using dense shrub plantings, such as Coyote bush,
along the edges of the access road to screen the access road and provide cover for
wildlife while moving across the roadway to the marsh or uplands.
Successful landscaping of the landfill slope would create an effective buffer zone
between the development and the Canalways marsh and provide significant
improvement in the value of wildlife habitat. The restored area would become an
integral part of the Shoreline Park Master Plan. Submit the restoration plan,
including landscape planting and irrigation plans, to the City of San Rafael
Planning Department for review and approval. The restoration plan should also
be submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for comment because the
upper marsh margin and lower landfill slope may provide habitat for the
endangered salt marsh harvest mouse and other special -status species.
Mitigation 3.5 -lb -SC: Increase the landscape buffer adjacent to Parcels 2
and 3 to extend north onto the 20 -foot -wide City -owned property towards the
Canalways Marsh to remove weedy plants and debris and replace these low value
areas with native marsh and upland plants in a band that joins the landscaping
on Parcels 1 and 6 as described in Mitigation 3.5-1a. Implementation of this
mitigation will provide a continuation of landscaping efforts proposed in the Park
Master Plan for the area adjacent and north of Parcel 6.
Rationale for Findings: The majority of the approximate 42 acres of upland
ruderal vegetation that will be removed at the project site due to project
implementation has been disturbed by previous landfill activities and is dominated by
non-native species. However, development on this site would lead to increased noise,
litter, and vehicle and human activity that could disturb wildlife using adjacent
sensitive marsh habitats.
The Shoreline Center Master Plan, as revised in response to Mitigation
Measures 3.5 -la -SC and 3.5 -lb -SC, will provide additional acreage of landscape
buffer to ensure that marsh values are maintained or enhanced to effectively mitigate
for future development onsite. Unused slopes surrounding the project site provide an
opportunity for buffering impacts from the proposed development.
The project site is separated from the adjacent Canalways marsh to the north by
a strip of land along the lower landfill slope with low degraded habitat value.
Without extension of the landscape buffer onto City -owned property adjacent to
Parcels 1, 3, and 6, the value of proposed landscaping at the northern property
-17-
R.
boundary would be reduced because of its isolation from the marsh edge.
Replacement of non-native species in the new buffer areas with native marsh and
upland vegetation would further improve the habitat value of these landscape buffers
and therefore increase its effectiveness as a mitigation buffer area between the marsh
and development at the project site. The California Department of Fish and Game
(CDFG) has reviewed the proposed mitigation for this project and agrees with
implementation of the EIR's recommended measures (B. Hunter, Regional Manager,
Region 3, CDFG, Letter to S. Delimont, City of San Rafael, July 12, 1993).
Imoact 3.5 -2 -SC: The proposed perimeter landscape buffers will not sufficiently
screen the buffer and marsh areas from potential adverse
impacts to wildlife from headlights, human observation, casual
visitors, noise, and other human activities.
Mitigation 3.5-2: Revise the proposed Master Plan landscape plans to include
perimeter berms in landscape areas between the top of the slopes and building
setbacks in areas adjacent to marsh habitat. Vegetated berms would significantly
increase the effectiveness of the landscape buffer to reduce impacts on wildlife
habitat from headlight glare and security lighting, human observation, casual
visitors, noise, and other human activities that may be intrusive on the habitat
areas created or preserved. Incorporating berms near the crest of the slope as a
mitigation measure would reduce this impact to less -than -significant levels. Areas
designated to be screened by berms are shown on Figure 3.5-6 and shall include:
• Parcel 3 --on the north side adjacent to Canalways marsh.
• Parcel 1 --the northwest and westerly sides adjacent to Canalways
marsh.
• Parcel 6 --the northwest side along the City outfall line separating the
Canalways marsh.
• Parcel 6 --the southeast portion of the site nearest the MIVIWD marsh.
• Parcel 5 --closest to the MMWD marsh.
Landscaped berms approximately 5 feet in elevation above the parking lot
elevation or building access elevations shall be used to screen headlights, human
activities, random visitor access, and noise from the landscape buffer areas on the
perimeter slopes and the upper marsh. Berms constructed will need to comply
with geotechnical considerations on placement and load factors. Consider use of
lighter mixes with amendments such as sawdust. Berms shall be blended into the
landscape plans to further enhance wildlife habitat values in perimeter buffer
areas. Compatibility with Shoreline Park visitor access can be maintained by
limiting park visitor direct access and viewsheds to the points shown on Figures
19 and 20 of the Enhancement Plan. Figures 3.5-7 illustrates the recommended
landscape treatment along the southeastern corner of Parcel 5 adjacent to
Shoreline Park and the MMWD pond.
Alternate Mitigation 3.5-2: Revise the proposed Master Plan landscape plans to
include perimeter berms and/or fences in landscape areas between the top of the
slopes and building setbacks in areas adjacent to marsh habitat. Vegetated berms
and/or fences would significantly increase the effectiveness of the landscape buffer
to reduce impacts on wildlife habitat from headlight glare and security lighting,
human observation, casual visitors, noise, and other human activities that may be
intrusive on the habitat areas created or preserved. Incorporating berms and/or
fences near the crest of the slope as a mitigation measure would reduce this
impact to less -than -significant levels. Areas designated to be screened by berms
and/or fences are shown on Figure 3.5-6 and shall include:
• Parcel 3 --on the north side adjacent to Canalways marsh.
• Parcel 1 --the northwest and westerly sides adjacent to Canalways
marsh.
• Parcel 6 --the northwest side along the City outfall line separating the
Canalways marsh.
• Parcel 6 --the southeast portion of the site nearest the MMWD marsh.
• Parcel 5 --closest to the MMWD marsh.
Landscaped berms and/or fences approximately 5 feet in elevation above the
parking lot elevation or building access elevations shall be used to screen
headlights, human activities, random visitor access, and noise from the landscape
buffer areas on the perimeter slopes and the upper marsh. Berms and fences
constructed will need to comply with geotechnical considerations on placement
and load factors. Consider use of lighter mixes in berms with amendments such
as sawdust. Berms shall be blended into the landscape plans to further enhance
wildlife habitat values in perimeter buffer areas. Compatibility with Shoreline
Park visitor access can be maintained by limiting park visitor direct access and
viewsheds to the points shown on Figures 19 and 20 of the Enhancement Plan.
Figures 3.5-7 illustrates the recommended landscape treatment along the
southeastern corner of Parcel 5 adjacent to Shoreline Park and the MMWD pond.
-19-
In particular, the following combination of berms and fences will be utilized as
buffers along edges of the project site:
Parcel 1:
Construct a 5 -foot high solid fence along the west side of Parcel 1 approximately 5
to 10 feet in from the top of the bank and plant mature, dense native vegetation
along this edge outbound of the fence.
Parcel 3:
Construct a 5 -foot high solid fence along the northeast edge of Parcel 3
approximately 5 to 10 feet in from the top of the bank and plant mature, dense
native vegetation along this edge outbound of the fence.
Parcel 5:
Construct a 5 -foot high solid fence along the eastern and southeastern side of
Parcel 5, adjacent to the MMWD Pond and marsh area, approximately 5 to 10
feet in from the top of the bank and plant mature, dense native vegetation along
this edge outbound of the fence.
Parcel 6:
Erect a vegetated berm along the northwest and northern edges of Parcel 6
adjacent to Canalways marsh to reduce impacts to the marsh. The specific
location is to be determined when specific development plans for the parcel are
designed so that the exact location will provide adequate screening of vehicle
headlights from the wetlands. Construct a 5 -foot high solid fence with mature
dense native shrub species along the southeast boundary of Parcel 6 adjacent to
the MMWD Pond and marsh.
Rationale for Findings: The Shoreline Center Master Plan Landscape Plan, as
revised in response to Mitigation 3.5 -2 -SC, will significantly reduce the adverse
effects of headlight glare and lighting, noise, and other human activity that may
disturb wildlife foraging, nesting areas, and movement corridors in sensitive habitats
adjacent to the project site. Inclusion of a fence or vegetated berms along the
perimeter of the project site would function as natural screens between development
and adjacent natural marsh and open water habitats. In consultation with CDFG, use
of berms, or alternatively, fencing and native shrub vegetation, was recommended as
appropriate devices for minimizing disturbance to marsh habitats surrounding the
project site (B. Hunter, Regional Manager, Region 3, CDFG, Letter to S. Delimont,
City of San Rafael, July 12, 1993; Conversations between S. Delimont and L.
-20-
Patterson, City of San Rafael, and Fred Botti, Associate Wildlife Biologist, CDFG).
In particular, CDFG made the following recommendations with respect to buffers
along each edge of the project site:
Parcel 1:
Construct a 5 -foot high solid fence along the west side of Parcel 1 approximately 5 to
10 feet in from the top of the bank and plant mature, dense native vegetation along
this edge outbound of the fence.
Parcel 3:
Construct a 5 -foot high solid fence along the northeast edge of Parcel 3 approximately
5 to 10 feet in from the top of the bank and plant mature, dense native vegetation
along this edge outbound of the fence.
Parcel 5:
Construct a 5 -foot high solid fence along the eastern and southeastern side of Parcel 5,
adjacent to the MMWD Pond and marsh area, approximately 5 to 10 feet in from the
top of the bank and plant mature, dense native vegetation along this edge outbound of
the fence.
Parcel 6:
Erect a vegetated berm along the northwest and northern edges of Parcel 6 adjacent to
Canalways marsh to reduce impacts to the marsh. The specific location is to be
determined when specific development plans for the parcel are designed so that the
exact location will provide adequate screening of vehicle headlights from the wetlands.
Construct a 5 -foot high solid fence with mature dense native shrub species along the
southeast boundary of Parcel 6 adjacent to the MMWD Pond and marsh.
The "Alternate Mitigation" has been found to be equivalent in value to the
"Mitigation" as a buffer to mitigate the stated impact and would eliminate unnecessary
and undesirable conflicts with appropriate design and operation of the project.
Impact 3.5 -3 -SC: The use of non-native plants in the proposed Planting Concept
Plan will not mitigate for the reduction in upland habitat value
for wildlife.
Mitigation 3.5 -3a -SC: Included in the City of San Rafael's Shoreline
Enhancement Plan is a list of Native and Naturalized Plants for Revegation and
Landscaping Around South Pond, Bayview Marsh, MMWD Pond and Shoreline
-21-
Industrial Park "Green" (Planting Program, page 29) (MPA et al., August 1991).
The Enhancement Plan plant list provides a comprehensive list of native species
suitable for landscaping needs and that provide habitat value for indigenous
wildlife. Update and revise the proposed Master Plan and list of plants on the
Planting Concept Plan (Figure MP -3 of the Shoreline Center Project Plans) to
reflect the list of suitable species as shown on the Enhancement Plan. Establish
guidelines for the size and densities of landscape plants that ensure that
landscaping will provide habitat values within established timeframes. Revise the
landscape plan to reflect the goals of restoring native plant habitat in the
perimeter buffer areas.
Develop a landscape maintenance plan that provides for wildlife habitat
protection and is consistent with the Park Master Plan and Enhancement Plan
guidance and the landfill closure requirements. Incorporate the landscape
maintenance plan as part of the proposed Master Plan.
Develop a species list for use in the accent areas in parking areas and around
buildings selected from the Shoreline Enhancement Plan list and specified in the
proposed Master Plan.
Give priority to use of plants with higher wildlife value for food, cover, and
refuge in developing detailed landscape layouts. Suitable plant lists are provided
in the Park Master Plan and Enhancement Plans. Use of extensive shrub cover
along the perimeter slopes and near the maintenance access road to enhance
screening of marsh areas should be a goal of the landscape plan. Selection and
use of shrubs, such as gum plant (Grindelia sp.) and mule fat (Baccharis viminea),
would enhance cover and screening along the marsh margin, while placement of
trees, such as Bishop pine or Monterey cypress, along the crest and base of the
perimeter slopes would enhance screening and provide isolation of marsh areas.
Mitigation 3.5 -3b -SC: Develop a landscape irrigation plan that meets the
objectives identified in the Enhancement Plan, meets MMWD goals for
conservation and reuse, and is practical for use with the species mix proposed in
the Enhancement Plan (MPA 1989, NEW" Board Policy No. 2). Reclaimed
water should be considered for landscaped areas and the Shoreline Center
planning should be coordinated with the Enhancement Plan improvements. The
project area has been identified as a potential reuse area because of the close
proximity of the Central Marin Sanitation Agency (CMSA) main treatment plant.
Reclaimed water could be available for use at this site in the future.
However, several factors may preclude reclaimed water availability in the near
future: budget constraints at CMSA and MMWD and the City of San Rafael,
high salinity levels (up to 2,000 mg/1 chloride) in the CMSA effluent that are due
-22-
in part to infiltration in the sewer system, and the salt tolerance levels of
landscape plants.
Nevertheless, in accordance with the MMWD policy, new developments should
include specific features that would allow connection to a reclaimed water system
at any point in the future.
The specification of Section 12b --Landscape Design of the proposed Shoreline
Center Master Plan shall be revised to include the irrigation system guidelines
established by NEVIWD for use of reclaimed water, such as use of purple pipe,
separate metering, and piping connections.
Rationale for Findings: Exotic non-native species currently proposed in the
project's Planting Concept Plan would not provide comparable habitat values to
mitigate for loss of wildlife that currently use the upland ruderal habitat at the project
site, including birds, raptors, and small mammals. Use of native species in
landscaping areas will provide more effective habitat value for wildlife compared to
non-native plants currently proposed in the project's Planting Concept Plan.
Development of a landscape irrigation plan will ensure the sustenance of selected
native species. The Planting Plan is only conceptual in nature and will be revised to
incorporate the species list developed to reflect the list of suitable species shown in
San Rafael's Shoreline Enhancement Plan.
Impact 3.5 -4 -SC: The habitat value of the perimeter landscape buffer
would be degraded if all of the non-native weedy
vegetation is not removed.
Mitigation 3.5 -4 -SC: Eradicate non-native plants from all areas adjacent
to marsh and upland habitat created in the landscaped buffer around the project
site. Eradication shall occur in the spring for a period of three to five years.
Coordinate removal plans with implementation of the Enhancement Plan and
Shoreline Park Master Plan. The removal process shall not include herbicide
spraying.
Before surcharged fill is placed on the project site, graders shall remove all onsite
vegetation. As surcharged fill is removed or relocated, the cleaned area will be
seeded with the native grass mixture recommended in the Shoreline Park Master
Plan to provide a vegetation cover and serve to control erosion if buildout is
delayed more than three to six months.
Rationale for FindinLys: Removal of non-native plants from the project site will
ensure that these species do not re -colonize onsite or provide a seed source for
additional non -natives that could degrade the value of the perimeter landscape buffer.
-23-
Further, the City of San Rafael's Shoreline Enhancement Plan includes a list of native
plants appropriate for use in the upland habitat area. Using plants on this list will
result in landscaping that provides habitat value for indigenous wildlife.
Impact 3.5 -5 -SC: Lack of coordination between the Shoreline Center Master
Plan, Shoreline Enhancement Plan, and Shoreline Park Master
Plan could have the following impacts:
• If the City's Enhancement Plan improvements
do not occur simultaneously with the
landscaping of the perimeter buffer, a band of
weedy, invasive ruderal vegetation will remain
around the perimeter of Parcel 6.
• Weeds could invade the proposed native plant
landscaping and marsh areas and require
control measures, including the use of
herbicide controls.
• A weedy zone will interrupt the transition
between upland habitat created in the
perimeter buffer and the levee and MMWD
marsh, decreasing the benefits to be gained by
the buffer revegation efforts.
• The weedy zone will provide a refuge for
undesirable wildlife and contribute to
prolonged impacts on marsh habitat.
• The weedy zone between perimeter landscape
areas and marsh areas could become an
attractant for disposal of refuse and litter as
visitor access to the Shoreline Center site
increases.
Mitigation 3.5 -5 -SC: Buildout of the Shoreline Center site will require
landscaping in perimeter areas along the slopes of the landfill cap. Coordination
between the Shoreline Enhancement Plan, the proposed Shoreline Park Master
Plan, and the Shoreline Center Master Plan during implementation of these plans
will be essential in establishing native plant vegetation, habitat restoration or
creation, protection of valuable wildlife habitat, and the development of
maintenance practices that have potential benefits for wildlife.
-24-
The proposed Master Plan should be revised to include a landscaping plan that is
fully compatible with the Enhancement Plan and Shoreline Park Master Plan and
the landfill closure requirements. The proposed Master Plan shall be revised to
have the following requirements:
• Landscape planning shall be coordinated with the Shoreline
Enhancement Plan improvements during each phase of the proposed
Master Plan buildout period.
• The proposed Master Plan should be updated, yearly at a minimum,
to reflect the status of the Enhancement Plan during the interim
period to conclusion of project buildout. The City of San Rafael's
efforts to complete the Park Master Plan and Enhancement Plan
should be incorporated into the proposed Shoreline Center's Master
Plan to ensure that all plans are complementary and compatible.
• California native plants with upland habitat values shall be used in
landscaping all perimeter areas upslope of marsh habitat. Upland
vegetation shall be established in zones that blend with natural plant
communities and are compatible with the Enhancement Plan
objectives.
Rationale for Findings: The Shoreline Center Master Plan Landscape Plan, as
revised pursuant to Mitigation Measure 3.5 -5 -SC, will ensure that all future
landscaping efforts along the perimeter of the project site will be undertaken in
coordination with the City's other planning efforts and will protect the habitat value of
marsh areas from invasion by non-native weedy species.
Impact 3.5 -6 -SC: Increase in general light levels within the project area will
degrade the habitat quality of adjacent marsh areas and could
potentially cause a loss in habitat availability for sensitive
species.
Mitigation 3.5 -6 -SC: Revise the Lighting Master Plan for Development of
Shoreline Center to reflect more specific guidance on perimeter and other light
sources. Existing guidance in the Lighting Master Plan provides that perimeter
lights should not be located in marsh areas and that cutoff fixtures should be
used. Additional requirements shall be added to include:
• Restrict light levels in marsh areas beyond the property line to
current ambient conditions to the extent feasible using landscape
vegetation and downlight fixtures. No increase in ambient light
-25-
levels in the marsh and adjacent habitat should be allowed beyond
the parking lot perimeter and setback.
• A lighting survey of marsh areas along the property line shall be
conducted along the property lines of Parcels 1, 39 5, and 6 adjacent
to marsh and open water habitats and the results of the survey
mapped for future reference in the Lighting Master Plan.
• Proposed new developments shall demonstrate that additional
perimeter lighting will not exceed measured ambient levels.
Reflected glare, surface reflectivity, and other indirect sources of
light shall be considered in evaluating light levels of proposed
building or development uses.
• New perimeter lighting shall not intrude in marsh habitat. If
possible, perimeter lighting should be reduced to minimal levels
essential for security and safety reasons in all perimeter areas
adjacent to marsh habitat.
• Downlight fixtures and cutoff pole fixtures shall be used in all
perimeter areas to minimize lighting impacts on wildlife.
Rationale for Findings: Use of downlight fixtures and cutoff pole fixtures, as
well as landscape vegetation as part of perimeter berms or adjacent to fencing, will
effectively decrease the effect of stationary parking lot and building lighting, as well
as automobile headlights, in adjacent marsh areas. These measures will maintain
lighting at the perimeter of the site and beyond the property line at existing ambient
levels. Maintenance of existing offsite ambient light levels will ensure that new
development does not cause avoidance of natural offsite habitats by nocturnal animals
and/or increase predation on resident species in these habitats.
Impact 3.5 -7 -SC: Pollutant and sediment loads from discharged stormwater
could potentially affect adjacent receiving waters, including the
Canalways marsh, City retention pond, and MMWD pond,
and could harm benthic invertebrates, fish, and a wide variety
of water fowl, shorebirds, and other wildlife that utilize the
ponds and near shore mudflats.
Mitigation 3.5 -7 -SC: Implement Mitigation Measures 3.3-2a through 3.3-
2d and Mitigation Measures 3.3-3a and 3b. The following actions should also be
implemented by Shoreline Center developers in concert with the City of San
Rafael to further reduce the potential for impact on marsh and nearshore habitats
and the diverse biological communities they support:
-26-
The proposed Master Plan should be amended to include a detailed,
site-specific Best Management Practices (BMP's) section to avoid,
reduce, and control stormwater loadings from proposed
developments. Elements in the BMP program shall be based on the
RWQCB's nonpoint source control program. The results obtained
from the Santa Clara and Alameda County programs for similar
watersheds and land uses mixes and the Marin County program
should be used to establish site-specific control measures for
Shoreline Center.
• When Marin County implements its Urban Runoff Baseline Control
Program, the results of the program should be used in targeting the
specific BMP's for the Master Plan based on expected business use
mixes in final buildout.
Rationale for Findiggs: Mitigation Measures prescribed in Section 3.3,
Hydrology, Grading, and Drainage, addressing impacts related to water quality
degradation in adjacent open water and marsh habitats due to sediment and pollutant
loading in the stormwater, would also be effective in minimizing the potential harmful
effects that polluted stormwater could have on fish, water fowl, and other wildlife that
use adjacent marsh habitats (see discussion under Measures 3.3 -3a -SC through 3d -SC
and measures 3.3 -3a -SC and 3.3 -3b -SC in Section 3.3 of this Statement). The project
is required to comply with the terms and conditions set forth in the Marin County
Urban Runoff Baseline Control Program regulated by the RWQCB, San Francisco Bay
Region, which functions as a general stormwater monitoring program. The results of
this monitoring program will be used to establish site-specific measures to further
avoid and control pollutant loading in stormwater discharged from the site.
Impact 3.5 -8 -SC: Surface water runoff and other water quality
contaminants could potentially affect the Point
Reyes Bird's Beak and Marin Knotweed, two
special -status plant species that may occur in the
salt marsh habitat adjacent to the project site.
Mitigation 3.5 -8 -SC: Implement Mitigation Measures 3.3-2a through 3.3-
2d and 3.3-3a and 3b. No further mitigation is required.
Rationale for Findings: Mitigation measures described in Section 3.3,
Hydrology, Grading, and Drainage, that address erosion and water quality degradation
during and after construction would reduce any potential impacts to offsite special -
status plant species in adjacent marsh habitats. See the discussion under Mitigation
Measures 3.3 -2 -SC and 3.3 -3 -SC in Section 3.3 of this Statement.
-27-
Impact 3.5 -9 -SC: Discharge of potentially harmful materials (e.g., stormwater
spills, irrigation runoff, street cleaning, etc.) to the adjacent
Canalways, MMWD, and city marshes could potentially affect
the habitat of the California black rail, California clapper rail,
and saltmarsh wandering shrew.
MitiL,ation 3.5 -9 -SC: Under build out of the Shoreline Center, the types
of business could vary initially and in the future. Some types of business could
have greater potential for creating an impact on the marsh areas than others
because of the types of businesses and associated activities. Because business uses
could change in the future, there is the possibility that future uses could adversely
impact the marshes adjacent to the site. Therefore, the proposed Master Plan
should be modified to establish a monitoring program to track potential impacts
on the marshes and institute a corrective action process if impacts are detected.
The program should be designed to detect and remedy adverse impacts on the
marsh that may occur with future business uses.
The following measures should be taken to reduce and avoid impacts:
• Remove litter and take steps to decrease the contributing sources
such as increased signage, numbers of waste receptacles, covering of
trash containers, and other reasonable measures to avoid litter
entering the marsh.
• Erect signs at points of entry that identify the marshes as wildlife
habitat and that disturbance of wildlife, trespassing on vegetation,
and disposal of litter is detrimental to the values of the marsh.
• The project applicant should undertake efforts to maintain and
enhance the habitat values of the marsh and restored upland areas
surrounding the development. Monitoring shall be integrated with
implementation of the Park Master Plan and the Enhancement Plan.
The plan should include measures such as the cost of additional and
replacement signage, litter removal, plant materials, tools, publicity,
and similar measures to enhance the marsh community, and improve
Shoreline Center worker and visitor awareness of marsh values,
vulnerability, and sensitivity to human interferences.
• The project applicant should actively participate in any source
reduction and/or recycling programs currently implemented in the
City to help reduce the amount of waste generated at the source of
production as well as encouraging recycling.
ME
Rationale for Findings: The measures described above under Mitigation
Measure 3.5 -9 -SC will minimize the effect of potentially harmful materials discharged
via irrigation and/or stormwater runoff on adjacent sensitive habitats by controlling
sources of waste generated at the project site. Recent state legislation (Assembly Bill
939) requires all local jurisdictions to reduce waste through both source control and
recycling measures. Developer participation in local waste reduction and/or recycling
programs implemented by the City of San Rafael will further minimize the potential
for accidental discharge of litter or other forms of waste offsite. Identification signs
making visitors and workers at the site aware of the importance of adjacent habitats
will help to minimize human disturbances to these areas. Implementation of a
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan to control accidental leaks or spills of potentially
polluted materials into the stormdrain system (see Mitigation Measure 3.3 -3a -SC and
3b -SC) will also reduce potential degradation of adjacent saltmarsh habitat. The
proposed monitoring program for the Shoreline Center Master Plan will function as
the mechanism to identify and remedy any adverse impacts that harmful materials
could have on marsh habitats as future projects at the site are implemented.
Impact 3.5 -10 -SC: Increased surface runoff into the Canalways marsh could
inundate habitat for the endangered saltmarsh harvest mouse.
Mitigation 3.5 -10 -SC: Implement Mitigation Measure 3.3-3-1a.
Rationale for Findings: Habitat for the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse
could be threatened by increased surface water runoff into the Canalways marsh.
However, as described under the Rationale for Findings for Impact 3.3 -1 -SC in
Section 3.3, Hydrology, Grading, and Drainage, implementation of Mitigation
Measure 3.3 -la -SC will allow future Shoreline Center development only when it can
be demonstrated that either there is existing capacity within the pond or that the
pond's capacity has been restored sufficiently to accommodate incremental increased
flows or that any further incremental increased flows would be insignificant and
therefore would not affect salt marsh harvest mouse habitat.
Impact 3.5 -19 -HD: Development of Home Depot could result in reduced habitat
value in the perimeter buffer areas of Parcel 1.
Mitigation 3.5 -19 -HD: The plant list of the Home Depot Landscape
Concept Plan should be revised to show the plants listed in the Shoreline
Enhancement Plan. Non-native plant species should not be used in the perimeter
buffer planting. The wildlife habitat enhancement objectives of the Enhancement
Plan should be incorporated and implemented into the Home Depot plan.
Incorporate the approximate 35,000 square -foot triangular area north of Home
Depot into the Home Depot landscape plan and revegetation efforts adjacent to
the salt marsh.
-29-
Implement Mitigation Measures 3.3-5-1a, 3.3-5-4, 3.3-5-8, and 3.3-5-9 in areas
applicable to the Home Depot development on Parcel 1. In addition, implement
the following mitigations recommended on a prorated basis with the balance of
the Shoreline Center development:
• Mitigation 3.3-5-7 (measures to further avoid, reduce, and control
stormwater loadings).
Rationale for Findings: Use of native plant species in the buffer areas of this
parcel, as proposed in the Shoreline Enhancement Plan, would significantly improve
this area's habitat value by providing a better source of food and wildlife cover for
species that currently forage on Parcel 1 at the project site. In addition, see the
discussion under Mitigation Measures 3.5 -la -SC, 3.5 -4 -SC, 3.5 -7 -SC, 3.5 -8 -SC, and
3.5 -9 -SC above.
F. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION.
Findings. The FEIR identified potentially significant adverse effects of the
project pertaining to transportation and circulation and identified mitigation measures
for the impacts. Incorporation into the project of the mitigation measures identified by
the FEIR results in changes and alterations in the project which avoid or substantially
lessen these significant impacts. It is likely that no significant transportation and
circulation impacts will remain unmitigated. However, to the extent that any
transportation and circulation impacts would remain unmitigated, such impacts are
acceptable due to overriding considerations because expected project benefits outweigh
any unavoidable adverse environmental effects as set forth in Section IV of this
Statement.
Impact 3.6 -1 -HD: In the absence of traffic controls, the existing project site plan
may not efficiently accommodate projected Phase I Home
Depot total traffic volumes.
Mitication 3.6 -la -HD: Install STOP sign on the egress lanes of the site
access drives (see intersection Nos. 11 and 12 on Figures 3.6-1 through 3.6-8).
Mitication 3.6 -lb -HD: Provide median channelization along the entire
length of Shoreline Parkway to encourage proper traffic operation, and to provide
exclusive left turn lanes at the site access drives along Shoreline Parkway.
Mitication 3.6 -lc -HD: Construct the proposed Shoreline Parkway site
access drive to provide two ingress lanes and two egress lanes, each of 12 -feet
minimum width. Standard 24" x 30" (R7) and 24" x 18" (R7A) Caltrans signs
should be installed at the approach to this roadway.
-30-
Mitigation 3.6-ld-HD: Provide directional signs onsite to guide traffic to I-
580 interchanges.
Rationale for Findings: The proposed Home Depot site plan was analyzed for
adequacy with respect to the adjacent roadway network as part of the overall traffic
impact study. This analysis reviewed the proposed points of ingress and egress into
the project site and at individual parcels and identified potential circulation conflicts
within the project site to determine an appropriate access plan to accommodate
projected additional traffic generated by the proposed project. The above measures
are considered standard traffic engineering practice to encourage efficient traffic
operations at and through the project site.
Imoact 3.6 -2 -HD: Temporary increases in traffic during surcharging and
construction activities could affect traffic operations on nearby
roadways in the project vicinity.
Mitigation 3.6 -2 -HD: Restrict trips hauling fill material and moving
construction equipment, material, and workers to the project site to non -peak
morning and afternoon weekday hours or reroute this traffic to avoid congestion
intersections during the AM and PM peak hours.
Rationale for Findings: Because the project site will be pre -loaded or
"surcharged" with fill material before development of Home Depot, this one-time
activity would generate additional traffic to and from the project site. Construction
activities would also generate a short-term temporary increase in both truck traffic and
automobile traffic at the project site. However, because these activities are only
temporary and short-term in duration, the resulting traffic impact on the surrounding
roadway network will not be adverse if trips are restricted to non -peak hours when
daily traffic is less congested or if they are rerouted to avoid heavily congested
intersections during peak hour travel times.
Impact 3.6 -4 -SC: The projected 815 trips generated by Shoreline Center under
Master Plan conditions, in addition to the 400 trips generated
by Home Depot, would result in 5 more trips beyond the 1,210
trips originally allocated for the project site in the General
Plan.
Mitigation 3.6 -4 -SC: Reduce the total square footage prescribed in the
Shoreline Center Master Plan by an amount proportionate to the three proposed
land uses (specialty retail, light industrial, and business office) in order to reduce
the total number of PM peak -hour trips generated at the site by 5 to 1,210.
-31-
Rationale for Findings: The Shoreline Center Master Plan, as revised in
response to Mitigation 3.6 -4 -SC, will conform to the City of San Rafael's General
Plan allocation of 1,210 trips for this project site.
Impact 3.6 -5 -SC: Shoreline Center -generated project traffic would cause a
deterioration in level of service at the intersections of Bellam
Boulevard/Francisco Boulevard and Bellam Boulevard/Berner
Boulevard from LOS D and LOS C, respectively, under
background conditions, to LOS F.
Mitigation 3.6 -5 -SC: Shoreline Center developers shall participate, in
coordination with other approved projects, in a traffic mitigation fee program, as
required by General Plan Policy 3.3-18, that equitably distributes the costs of
providing necessary offsite traffic improvements. The following improvements
are recommended to be implemented prior to development of Shoreline Center to
reduce cumulative traffic impacts in the study area. However, future
development at Shoreline Center will be able to compete with other projects in
San Rafael for Critical Moves awarded through the PPP process, if and when
available, and therefore could be constructed prior to implementation of these
improvements.
• Extend Berner Boulevard to the proposed project site to provide
necessary additional capacity to acceptably service anticipated future
traffic volumes. An EIR on the Berner Boulevard expansion project
is budgeted and planned to be prepared during the 1992/93 fiscal
year. This project will be funded through available traffic mitigation
fees.
• Construct the proposed Bellam/I-580/U.S.-101 interchange
improvements per Caltrans and City of San Rafael design guidelines.
As indicated by the City, it is assumed that this proposed interchange
would improve operating conditions at study intersections to
acceptable levels of traffic operations. The overall traffic impacts of
the Shoreline Center Project and other projects in the vicinity of this
I-580 interchange were included in the traffic analysis conducted for
the San Rafael General Plan and General Plan EIR and provide the
basis for this mitigation. Phase I of the Bellam/I-580/U.S.-101
interchange improvements is listed as a partially funded project in
the City's Funded Capital Improvement Project list for 1992/93 (City
of San Rafael, 1992).
Rationale for Findings: The San Rafael General Plan 2000 contains policies
requiring coordination of development in East San Rafael with the construction of
-32-
transportation improvements. Circulation Policy 3.3-3 has been adopted in the
General Plan EIR to ensure that an adequate level of service (defined as LOS D) is
maintained at the I-580/Bellam Boulevard interchange. Policy 3.3-3 requires that new
development be constructed only after needed circulation project funding has been
guaranteed, circulation project environmental review is complete, and findings have
been made that the time frame for completion of needed circulation improvements will
not cause LOS D to be exceeded. This policy cites the I-580/U.S.-101/Bellam
Boulevard interchange, I-580 overcrossing, and Bellam Boulevard southbound ramp
relocation as major circulation improvements affected by this policy.
Pursuant to the requirements of the San Rafael General Plan 2000, the City has
adopted and implemented a procedure referred to as the "Priority Projects Procedure"
(PPP) for approving future projects where roadway capacity is limited, several
projects are competing for capacity, and needed improvements will take time to
construct. The intent of the PPP is to coordinate the construction of new
developments with the completion of necessary traffic improvements by allowing new
development to occur only as traffic capacity becomes available at certain critical
intersections designated in the General Plan.
Mitigation Measure 3.6 -5 -SC will ensure that no future projects will be
developed at Shoreline Center before cited improvements (e.g.: extension of Kerner
Boulevard and construction of Bellam/I-580/U.S.-101 interchange improvements) are
constructed unless the project can demonstrate through the PPP process that there is
enough capacity on the existing roadway system to accommodate it.
Impact 3.6 -6 -SC: In the absence of traffic controls, the existing project site plan
may not efficiently accommodate projected Shoreline Center
total traffic volumes. In addition, automobile traffic at the
project site could conflict with bicycle traffic using the
proposed bicycle route along the length of Kerner Boulevard.
Mitigation 3.6 -6a -SC: Provide at least two site access drives (e.g.: the
proposed secondary site access drive into Parcel 1) onto Kerner Boulevard to
alleviate traffic congestion on Shoreline Parkway. It is recommended that site
access from Kerner Boulevard be provided to all parcels adjacent to this roadway
(Parcels 2, 3, 4, and 5). In addition, provide two site access drives from Parcel 6
onto Shoreline Parkway to facilitate traffic flow in and out of this parcel.
Mitigation 3.6 -6b -SC: Design the intersection(s) of Kerner Boulevard with the
additional access drives to provide a minimum of two ingress and two egress
lanes, each of 12 -feet minimum width.
-33-
Mitigation 3.6 -6c -SC: Install a traffic signal at the intersection of Francisco
Boulevard and Shoreline Parkway (see intersection No. 8 on Figure 3.6-1 through
3.6-8). As per industry standards, the feasibility of such a signal should be re-
evaluated at the time of installation.
Mitigation 3.6 -6d -SC: Design the site access drives to intersect Kerner Boulevard
at a 90 -degree angle, with minimum turning radii of 30 feet.
Mitigation 3.6 -6e -SC: Provide a separate bicycle lane along the section of Kerner
Boulevard that bisects the project site in coordination with the City's plans to
develop a Class II or Class III bicycle route along the length of Kerner Boulevard
south of Bellam Boulevard. A bicycle lane is included in the proposed Shoreline
Center Master Plan for Shoreline Parkway.
Rationale for Findings: Given the projected levels of traffic anticipated to use
Shoreline Parkway, these measures will relieve potential conflicts resulting from
internal traffic congestion at the project site. These measures, which specify the
location, width, and configuration of site access driveways, are based on a site-specific
review of the proposed Shoreline Center site plan and the project's traffic analysis and
are considered standard engineering practice. Provision of a separate bicycle lane
along Kerner Boulevard conforms to the City of San Rafael's plans to develop a
bicycle route along this roadway, as illustrated on General Plan Map 8 - Bicycle
Routes. This measure will effectively reduce potential conflicts between bicyclists and
automobile drivers at the project site by providing separate travel lanes for these two
forms of transportation.
Impact 3.6 -7 -SC: Temporary Increase in Traffic Volumes During Construction
Activities.
Mitigation 3.6 -7 -SC: Implement Mitigation Measure 3.3-6-2.
Rationale for Findings: See the discussion under Mitigation Measure 3.6 -2 -
le
G. AIR QUALITY.
Findings. The FEIR identified potentially significant adverse effects of the
project pertaining to air quality and identified mitigation measures for the impacts.
Incorporation into the project of the mitigation measures identified by the FEIR results
in changes and alterations in the project which avoid or substantially lessen certain of
these significant impacts. The projected increases in local ambient PM,o
concentrations attributable to traffic generated by the operation of the project would be
the only significant impacts resulting from the proposed development, which cannot be
-34-
mitigated to a less -than -significant level. However, to the extent that these air quality
impacts would remain unmitigated, such impacts are acceptable due to overriding
considerations because expected project benefits outweigh any unavoidable adverse
environmental effects as set forth in Section IV of this Statement.
Impact 3.7 -1 -SC: Emissions from project -generated traffic would contribute to
exceedances of the 24-hour PMIo significance criteria standards
in the general project vicinity.
Mitigation 3.7 -1 -SC: Increased emissions of PMIo from traffic generated
by Shoreline Center cannot be mitigated to a less -than -significant level. However,
to reduce the number of vehicle trips generated by the proposed Shoreline
Center, and thereby reduce PMIo levels in the project area, implement the
following transportation control measures:
• Pursuant to BAAQMD regulations to be adopted in late Fall 1992, all
individual businesses at Shoreline Center meeting specific criteria
(e.g., 100 or more employees reporting to single work sites between
the hours of 6:30 AM and 10:00 AM) should submit and implement
an employer -based trip reduction plan to reduce commuter trips.
These plans might include employee incentives such as flex -time work
schedules, reimbursement for employee -purchased transit fares, and
coordinated ride -sharing programs. BAAQMD estimates that
implementation of flex -time programs would reduce regional
emissions by 2 percent (BAAQMD, 1991).
• Pursuant to the City of San Rafael General Plan policies for new
developments, provide additional Transportation Systems
Management programs for Shoreline Center. These measures could
include carpool and vanpool programs, as well as provision of bicycle
parking facilities.
Rationale for Findings: According to the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District (BAAQMD), measures identified above would reduce regional PMIo emissions
by about 2 percent. Given the magnitude of projected PMIo emissions to be generated
by automobiles under full buildout of the project site, these measures will not reduce
the impact of these emissions to a level below the BAAQMD's significance criterion
for this pollutant. However, this impact is acceptable due to overriding considerations
because the project's expected benefits outweigh this unavoidable adverse
environmental effect, as described in Section IV of this Statement.
-35-
Impact 3.7 -9 -HD: Construction of the proposed Home Depot would generate
short-term emissions of PMIo that exceed the 24-hour PMIo
standard.
Mitigation 3.7 -9 -HD: Administer a dust control program during project
construction similar to the program described for Mitigation Measure 3.7-12.
Rationale for Findings: According to the BAAQMD's Guidelines for Assessing
Impacts of Projects and Plans (September 1991), implementation of an effective dust -
control program can reduce PMIo emissions by up to 50 percent. The proposed
measures outlined under Mitigation Measure 3.7-12 for controlling PMIo emissions
will significantly reduce the effects of PMIo emissions generated during Home Depot
construction activities to below the BAAQMD's significant criterion for this pollutant.
H. HUMAN HEALTH AND SAFETY AND LANDFILL GAS.
FindinL-s. The FEIR identified potentially significant adverse effects of the
project pertaining to human health and safety and landfill gas and identified mitigation
measures for the impacts. Incorporation into the project of the mitigation measures
identified by the FEIR results in changes and alterations in the project which avoid or
substantially lessen these significant impacts. In addition, some of the specified
impacts and/or changes or alterations identified in mitigation measures are within the
responsibility or jurisdiction of a public agency other than the City, and such changes
can and should be adopted by such other agency. It is likely that no significant human
health and safety and landfill gas impacts will remain unmitigated. However, to the
extent that any human health and safety and landfill gas impacts would remain
unmitigated, such impacts are acceptable due to overriding considerations because
expected project benefits outweigh any unavoidable adverse environmental effects as
set forth in Section IV of this Statement.
Impact 3.8 -1 -SC: Landfill gas could accumulate in excavated areas for Utilities
and pose a threat of explosion or asphyxiation.
Mitication 3.8 -la -SC: Contractors and utility companies shall submit
health and safety plans to the Marin County Department of Health and Human
Services and the California Environmental Protection Agency Department of
Toxic Substances Control for authorizing utility work and for monitoring site
operations. No utility work will be allowed onsite until these authorizing agencies
have reviewed the health and safety plan.
Mitication 3.8 -lb -SC: Place signs warning of the hazards of entering
confined airspaces on all utility covers and vaults.
-36-
Mitigation 3.8 -lc -SC: The project applicant shall notify the appropriate
enforcement agency of any condition that develops during utility installation
resulting in environmental degradation and/or a public health hazard.
Rationale for Findings: These measures are standard operating procedures
required for construction and maintenance activities associated with utility work at a
closed landfill. Mitigation Measure 3.8 -la -SC is consistent with state regulations
prescribing minimum standards for closure and post -closure maintenance activities
(Title 14, CCR, Subarticle 7.8). Compliance with the state's minimum standards for
solid waste handling and disposal is an express condition specified in the SQDS
Stipulated Order of Compliance and Agreement (August 1992).
Mitigation Measure 3.8 -lb -SC is a precautionary measure intended to warn
workers and visitors of potential dangers at and around utility vaults and airspaces.
Mitigation Measure 3.8 -lc -SC was specifically requested in the comment letter issued
by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) dated January 6,
1993 in response to the November 1992 Draft EIR. The CIWMB's request is
considered significant because they are the state agency with authority to regulate
development, operations, closure, and post -closure maintenance and development at all
solid waste management units (e.g.: landfill) in California.
Impact 3.8 -2 -SC: Penetration of the landfill cover during pile foundation
construction could expose construction workers to high
concentrations of landfill gas.
Mitigation 3.8 -2a -SC: Require contractors to submit health and safety
plans to the Marin County Department of Human Services and California
Environmental Protection Agency Department of Toxic Substances Control. No
penetration of the final cover shall occur prior to these agencies' approval of the
health and safety plan.
Mitigation 3.8 -2b -SC: Construct buildings with piles as part of the
foundation with a specific vapor barrier design for a continuous final cover
incorporating piles. The project applicant has proposed alternative methods (i.e.,
concrete slab) to provide a continuous final cover beneath structures.
Mitigation 3.8 -2c -SC: The project applicant shall notify the appropriate
enforcement agency of any condition that develops during penetration of the final
cover resulting in environment degradation and/or a public health hazard.
Rationale for Findings: Mitigation Measure 3.8 -2a -SC is consistent with state
standards regulating post closure maintenance and development activities at a closed
landfill. Compliance with the state's minimum standards for solid waste handling and
disposal is an express condition specified in the SQDS Stipulated Order of Compliance
-37-
and Agreement (August 1992). Mitigation Measure 3.8 -2b -SC is considered standard
engineering practice consistent with the Regional Water Quality Control Board's
criteria for installing foundation piles through a closed landfill.
Mitigation Measure 3.8 -2c -SC was specifically requested in the comment letter
issued by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) dated January
6, 1993 in response to the November 1992 Draft EIR. The CIWMB's request is
considered significant because they are the state agency with authority to regulate
development, operations, closure, and post -closure maintenance and development at all
solid waste management units (e.g.: landfill) in California.
Impact 3.8 -3 -SC: Onsite excavations could expose equipment operators to
landfill gas releases during building pad construction.
Mitigation 3.8 -3a -SC: Require contractors to submit health and safety
plans to the Marin County Department of Health and Human Services and
California Environmental Protection Agency Department of Toxic Substances
Control. No building pads shall be constructed prior to these agencies' approval
of the health and safety plan.
Mitigation 3.8 -3b -SC: The final cover after regrading shall comply with
the regulations prescribed in 23 CCF Chapter 15 and 14 CCR Chapter 3.
Mitieation 3.8 -3c -SC: The project applicant shall notify the appropriate
enforcement agency of any condition that develops during pad construction
resulting in environmental degradation and/or a public health hazard.
Rationale for Findings: Mitigation Measures 3.8 -3a -SC and 3.8 -3b -SC are
standard operating procedures required for constructing building foundations over a
closed landfill and are in compliance with state standards regulating post closure
maintenance and development. Compliance with state regulations will minimize
accidental releases of landfill gas from beneath the cap after regrading at the project
site. Compliance with the state's minimum standards for solid waste handling and
disposal is an express condition specified in the SQDS Stipulated Order of Compliance
and Agreement (August 1992). Mitigation Measure 3.8 -3c -SC was specifically
requested in the comment letter issued by the California Integrated Waste Management
Board (CIWMB) dated January 6, 1993 in response to the November 1992 Draft EIR.
The CIWMB's request is considered significant because they are the state agency with
authority to regulate development, operations, closure, and post -closure maintenance
and development at all solid waste management units (e.g.: landfill) in California.
MR
Impact 3.8 -19 -HD: The human health and safety and landfill gas
impacts associated with Home Depot would be
similar to those described for Shoreline Center.
MitiLration 3.8 -19 -HD: Implement Mitigation Measures 3.8-1 through 8-17.
Rationale for Findings: See discussion for Mitigation Measures 3.8 -la -SC
through 3.8 -lc -SC, 3.8 -2a -SC through 3.8 -2c -SC, and 3.8 -3a -SC through 3.8 -3c -SC
above.
I. PUBLIC SERVICES.
Findinss. The FEIR identified potentially significant adverse effects of the
project pertaining to public services and identified mitigation measures for the
impacts. Incorporation into the project of the mitigation measures identified by the
FEIR results in changes and alterations in the project which avoid or substantially
lessen these significant impacts. In addition, some of the specified impacts and/or
changes or alterations identified in mitigation measures are within the responsibility or
jurisdiction of a public agency other than the City, and such changes can and should
be adopted by such other agency. It is likely that no significant public services
impacts will remain unmitigated. However, to the extent that any public services
impacts would remain unmitigated, such impacts are acceptable due to overriding
considerations because expected project benefits outweigh any unavoidable adverse
environmental effects as set forth in Section IV of this Statement.
Impact 3.9 -1 -SC: Potential release of landfill gas during construction and
installation of utility lines and other subsurface infrastructure.
Mitigation 3.9-1: All utilities will be placed in clean fill corridors. Utilities
requiring deeper embedment than 3 feet will require verification of cap thickness.
In accordance with 14 CCR 17796(d)(5), utilities will not be installed in or below
the barrier layer of the final cover. If excavation into the waste is unavoidable,
obtain written permission from the appropriate and responsible landfill closure
agencies.
Rationale for Findings: This measure is consistent with State regulations
regarding placement of utility lines at a closed landfill, as recommended by the project
applicant's independent engineering consultants (Brunsing Associates, Inc., letter to A.
Millican, CH2M HILL, January 21, 1992). The proposed measure ensures that
installation of utility lines and other subsurface infrastructure will not result in an
accidental release of landfill gas. This mitigation measure will also ensure that utility
installation does not penetrate the landfill cap unless the appropriate landfill closure
agencies give written permission. As described in the Rationale for Findings under
-39-
Impact 3.2 -la -SC, agencies responsible for the landfill's closure and post -closure
requirements are expert in construction activities on and maintenance of former
landfills. Therefore, these agencies will ensure that any excavation beneath the
landfill cap to install utilities is undertaken in compliance with applicable regulations
that will protect human health and safety and the environment.
Impact 3.9 -2 -SC: Need for installation of water service infrastructure.
Mitigation 3.9 -2 -SC: The project applicant will be responsible for
constructing water service infrastructure improvements consistent with MMWD's
requirements. Water system design plans will be submitted concurrently with the
building permit application. The project sponsor will relocate, extend, or remove
the existing water main on the site. In addition, implement Mitigation Measure
3.9-1.
Rationale for Findings: Because the site is currently only serviced by an 8 -inch
water main located on Shoreline Parkway, this measure is necessary to ensure that
appropriate infrastructure is available to distribute water to future Shoreline Center
developments. This measure also ensures that specific design plans for this
infrastructure will be consistent with any requirements of the Marin Municipal Water
District. Because this measure involves subsurface construction, installation of water
service infrastructure will be subject to the same provisions described above under
Mitigation Measure 3.9 -1 -SC concerning installation of infrastructure at a closed
landfill.
Impact 3.9 -3 -SC: Need for installation of wastewater infrastructure.
Mitigation 3.9 -3 -SC: The project applicant will provide onsite sewer
collection lines that will connect into existing sanitary sewer facilities in the
project area. In addition, implement Mitigation Measure 3.9-1.
Rationale for Findings: Because the project site is currently only serviced by
one sanitary sewer pipe that runs the length of Shoreline Parkway, this measure is
necessary to ensure that appropriate infrastructure is available to collect sewage
discharged from future Shoreline Center developments. Because this measure involves
subsurface construction, installation of sewer service collection pipes will be subject to
the same provisions described above under Mitigation Measure 3.9 -1 -SC concerning
installation of infrastructure at a closed landfill.
Impact 3.9 -4 -SC: Need for installation of storm drainage facilities.
Mitigation 3.9 -4 -SC: The project applicant will implement a drainage
control plan for the site. This plan will identify all onsite facilities required to
.N
adequately handle surface runoff. It will be submitted to the City's Public Works
Department prior to issuance of a building permit. The City has specifications
for storm drainage design and erosion control which will be incorporated into the
projects. In addition, implement Mitigation Measure 3.9-1. See Section 3.8,
Human Health and Safety and Landfill Gas, for a complete discussion on specific
mitigations to prevent landfill gas release during installation of infrastructure.
Rationale for Findings: Because current storm drainage facilities are not
adequate to service future development at the project site, additional infrastructure will
be required. The drainage control plan proposed in this measure is standard
engineering practice for development projects to identify and design appropriate
infrastructure to accommodate stormwater runoff. Because this measure involves
subsurface construction, installation of storm drain pipes and other facilities will be
subject to the same provisions described above under Mitigation Measure 3.9 -1 -SC
concerning installation of infrastructure at a closed landfill.
Impact 3.9 -5 -SC: Need for installation of communications facilities.
Mitiiiation 3.9 -5 -SC: Implement Mitigation Measure 3.9-1. See Section
3.3, Hydrology, Grading, and Drainage, and Section 3.8, Human Health and
Safety and Landfill Gas, for a complete discussion of specific mitigations to
prevent landfill gas release during installation of infrastructure.
Rationale for Findings: Because existing communication lines currently only
service a portion of the project site, installation of appropriate communication facilities
such as underground cables and/or poles will be required to provide telephone service
to future developments at the project site.
Impact 3.9 -6 -SC: Increased levels of service for City maintenance of onsite
infrastructure because of ground settlement in the project
area.
Mitiaation 3.9 -6 -SC: To reduce the need for maintenance service by the
City Public Words Department, the project will be designed to prevent significant
settlement in the project area. Trees and landscaping will be placed on the
project site and not in the City rights-of-way to avoid the need for landscape
maintenance by the City.
Rationale for Findirkgs: Project features such as roads and utilities will be
designed to withstand potential site settlement in accordance with specific geotechnical
reports prepared for future projects at Shoreline Center. Similar to the site-specific
geotechnical report prepared for the Home Depot project (Law/Crandall, Inc., 1993),
future reports will make appropriate recommendations for the design of onsite utilities
-41-
and road paving so that this infrastructure can withstand potential movement associated
with ground settlement. Any adverse effects of settlement to onsite infrastructure
(e.g.: cracked or broken pipes or pavement) will be minimized through these design
recommendations, reducing the demand for maintenance services of roads and utilities
at the project site. In addition, onsite maintenance will be the responsibility of
individual developers, not the City.
Impact 3.9 -7 -SC: Increased demand for police protection.
Mitiization 3.9 -7 -SC: Implement the following City of San Rafael
General Plan policy before issuance of a building permit:
#S-23: Safety Review of Development Projects --Crime prevention
techniques shall be required in new development. Police Department
personnel shall review development applications to ensure that
landscaping, lighting, and building siting and design reduce the
opportunity for crime hazards.
Rationale for Findings: It is anticipated that the project could result in
increased crime in the form of retail, office, and vehicle theft. Provision of adequate
lighting and careful siting and design of buildings and landscaping can be an effective
tool for discouraging and minimizing these types of crimes at the project site. In
accordance with the City of San Rafael General Plan 2000 policies addressing
Emergency Services/Disaster Preparedness in the Health and Safety Element, crime
prevention techniques shall be required in Shoreline Center's future developments.
Involving the City of San Rafael Police Department in reviewing future development
applications at Shoreline Center will ensure that crime opportunities are discouraged,
thereby minimizing demand for increased police protection at the project site.
Impact 3.9 -12 -HD: All significant impacts on public services for Home Depot
would be identical to Impacts 3.9-1 through 3.9-7 identified for
Shoreline Center.
Mitieation 3.9 -12 -HD: Implement Mitigation Measures 3.9-1 through 3.9-7
to mitigate all potentially significant public service impacts.
Rationale for Findinis: See the discussion under Mitigation Measures 3.9 -1 -SC
through 3.9 -7 -SC addressed above.
J. AESTHETICS.
Findings. The FEIR identified potentially significant adverse effects of the
project pertaining to aesthetics and identified mitigation measures for the impacts.
-42-
Incorporation into the project of the mitigation measures identified by the FEIR results
in changes and alterations in the project which avoid or substantially lessen these
significant impacts. It is likely that no significant aesthetics impacts will remain
unmitigated. However, to the extent that any aesthetics impacts would remain
unmitigated, such impacts are acceptable due to overriding considerations because
expected project benefits outweigh any unavoidable adverse environmental effects as
set forth in Section IV of this Statement.
Impact 3.10 -1 -SC: Development of Shoreline Center would degrade the visual
quality of views to and through the project site from both on
and offsite locations.
Mitigation 3.10 -la -SC: Implement architectural and landscape guidelines
prescribed in the proposed Shoreline Center Master Plan, as well as mitigation
measures identified in Section 3.5 (Biological Resources) regarding enhancement
of the proposed perimeter landscape buffers consistent with landfill closure plan
requirements to minimize the visual effect of the proposed development. In order
to ensure aesthetic compatibility between the proposed identification sign and
surrounding environment, the sign shall be designed in accordance with Design
Review Board recommendations.
MitiLyation 3.10 -lb -SC: To reduce the visual dominance of new
development on Parcel 6 from East San Rafael Shoreline Park, investigate the
visual impact of placing future buildings 2 stores or less further than 25 feet from
the property line adjacent to the park and buildings higher than 2 stories further
than 50 feet from this property line. These distances are the minimum setbacks
prescribed in the proposed Master Plan for development on Parcel 6. The exact
placement of these buildings shall be determined by the designer/architect of
future Parcel 6 development(s). Prepare alternative site designs that take into
consideration views from future park users at the top and bottom of the slope
adjacent to the eastern perimeter of the project site. Submit these designs to the
City's Design Review Board so that the City can help select the least visually
obtrusive design(s) for the project site.
Mitigation 3.10 -1c -SC: Based on the EIR analysis, the final location of the
two view corridors on Parcel 6 shall be considered and decided through the City
design review process. Consider views from future park users at the top slope
adjacent to the eastern perimeter of the project site when locating these view
corridors.
Mitication 3.10-ld-SC: Require that plantings in the perimeter landscape
buffer adjacent to East San Rafael Shoreline Park are not located within or
obstruct views through the two view corridors designed for Parcel 6.
-43-
Mitigation 3.10 -le -SC: Require that future development on Parcel 6 stake
potential development and/or prepare photomontages illustrating the aesthetic
effect of new buildings from both the top and bottom of the slope adjacent to the
eastern perimeter of the project site at East San Rafael Shoreline Park.
Rationale for Findings: Views of the project site from both onsite and offsite
locations will be significantly enhanced by the measures described above. The site is
currently vacant and void of significant landscaping features. Implementation of
landscape buffers around edges of the project site adjacent to sensitive offsite habitats
will minimize the visual effects attributable to new development across most of the
project site.
Because of its location immediately adjacent to Parcel 6, views from East San Rafael
Shoreline Park would be the most significantly affected by project development.
Mitigation Measure for a less -than -significant impact, addressing the issue of habitat
fragmentation and isolation, will increase the minimum width of both the landscape
buffer and building setback area along the eastern edge of Parcel 6 from 10 and 25
feet, respectively, to 37 1/2 feet. This increased buffer will reduce the visual impact
of future development on Parcel 6 from users of East San Rafael Shoreline Park by
screening new buildings with natural landscaping and vegetation. In accordance with
measure 3.10 -lb -SC, alternative site designs for development on Parcel 6 that place
buildings further back than the minimum setback will also be considered. Potential
visual effects from development on Parcel 6, as well as the entire project site, will
ultimately be mitigated through the City design review process because all future
projects at Shoreline Center will require an Environmental and Design Review Permit
to be issued by the City Design Review Board. In addition, onsite views towards the
Bay and views from East San Rafael Shoreline Park inland towards Mt. Tamalpais
shall be protected by designated view corridors.
Impact 3.10 -3 -HD: Degradation of views to and through Home Depot project site
from both on -and offsite locations.
Mitigation 3.10 -3 -HD: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3.10-1a for
the proposed Shoreline Center Master Plan and Mitigation Measure 3.5-2 (see
Section 3.5, Biological Resources) would minimize any potential aesthetic impacts
from development of Home Depot.
Rationale for Findings: Seethe discussion under Mitigation Measure 3.10 -la -
SC above and Mitigation Measure 3.5 -2 -SC in Section 3.5, Biological Resources.
III. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES.
A. ALTERNATIVES. The FEIR examined the following seven potential on-site
and off-site alternatives:
On -Site Alternatives:
No Project.
Present Approvals.
Reduced Intensity.
Off -Site Alternatives:
St. Vincent/Silveria.
Marin Ranch Airport.
San Rafael Rock Quarry.
PG&E Site for Home Depot.
B. FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO ALTERNATIVES. None of the on-site
alternatives examined in the FEIR would achieve certain goals and objectives of the
City, including the City's Priority Project Policy, to the same degree that the proposed
project will attain those goals and objectives. Based on the economic, social, and
other considerations discussed below and for the reasons set forth in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (Section IV of this Statement) alternatives to the Project
Approvals identified and evaluated in the CEQA process are infeasible.
1. No Project. This alternative would be a continuation of the existing
conditions. Land at the Shoreline Center Business Park site would remain in its
current state. This alternative provides little or no potential for increased revenue
generation for the City from sales and/or property tax or any other alternate policies.
This alternative would not be consistent with the City's goal of increasing
employment. This alternative would not implement the project site's existing General
Plan designation of light industrial/office.
2. Present Approvals Alternative. This alternative would result in similar
potential impacts as compared with the proposed project. However, the present
approvals alternative would not be consistent with the City's Natural Environmental
Policy NE -15 of the City's General Plan requiring specified setbacks from wetland
areas since the present approvals provide for only 50 feet of setback, as compared
with the larger setbacks required by the Project Approvals. Such a reduced setback
-45-
area could result in greater impacts to biological resources. It is likely that this
alternative would not provide the City of San Rafael with as much sales and/or
property tax revenue as the proposed project, or at least it would not provide such
revenue as soon as the proposed project, since there is an identified potential business
(Home Depot) who will likely occupy a portion of the proposed project site, and there
are no identified proposed users for the site based upon the present approvals. This
alternative would not be consistent with the City's General Plan Priority Project
Policies.
3. Reduced Intensity. Under this alternative, the same uses would be
permitted as those for the proposed project. However, the total square footage of
development would be reduced by 50%. This project alternative could result in less
traffic related impacts than the closed project. However, commencement of Phase 2
of the proposed project (the portion which could result in aggregate development of
the site in excess of the amount contemplated by this alternative) is conditioned upon
sufficient roadway improvements to handle the traffic impacts created by that phase of
construction in a manner so as to satisfy the City's general plan policies concerning
traffic. Air quality impacts resulting from ultimate buildout of this alternative, as
compared with ultimate buildout of the proposed project, would be less because there
would be less vehicular emissions than those associated with ultimate buildout of the
proposed project. The FEIR shows that certain air quality impacts are the only
significant impacts which cannot be reduced through mitigation to a level of
insignificance. This reduced intensity alternative would also create air quality impacts
which would exceed the level of significance described in the FEIR. Because of the
nature of the air quality impacts and the air quality management district's definition of
level of significance, any significant development of the proposed project site would
be unable to occur without exceeding the air quality management district's defined
level of significance. This alternative would not attain the goal of the City's General
Plan Priority Project Policy to the same degree that the proposed project will attain
those goals and objectives. This alternative would provide less sales and/or property
tax revenue than the proposed project. This alternative would not likely provide as
many new temporary and permanent jobs as the proposed project.
4. Alternative Location: St. Vincent/Silveria. This site contains wetlands
and other environmentally sensitive lands which would most likely need to be filled in
order to accomplish development, thus, this site is environmentally inferior to the
project site. This site is designated by the San Rafael General Plan for residential and
neighborhood commercial. The uses proposed for the project site would be
inconsistent with the land use plan for this site. In addition, there are no public
services available at this site.
5. Alternative Location: Marin Ranch Airport. Existing on-site and
surrounding land uses would not be compatible with the uses proposed for the project
.M
site. Those uses would be inconsistent with the policies established by the General
Plan for this site, including the General Plan circulation policies for the area in which
this site is located. In addition, the site contains sensitive wetlands and biological
habitats which would be adversely affected by future development.
6. Alternative Location: San Rafael Rock Ouarry. This site is designated
for a recreational development and adjacent areas for neighborhood scale office and
commercial uses pursuant to the Peacock Gap Neighborhood Plan adopted by the City
of San Rafael. These uses would be inconsistent with the regional -oriented retail and
commercial /office uses proposed for the proposed project site. Moreover, this site
contains a number of ponds and a 30 -acre fresh -brackish marsh which provides
important habitat for plants and animals.
7. Alternative Location: Home Depot at PG&E Site. The PG&E site is
located in downtown San Rafael and is designated general commercial under the City's
General Plan. The site is on both sides of Lindaro Street, with approximately S acres
on one side and 4 acres on the other side of Lindaro Street. This site configuration
makes the site infeasible for use by Home Depot.
IV. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS.
A. CEQA requires that the City balance the benefits of a proposed project against
its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If
the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental
effects, the adverse effects may be considered "acceptable." If the City allows
occurrences of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR, but are not at
least substantially mitigated, the City must state in writing the specific reasons to
support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. The
basis of such a decision can include specific economic, social or other considerations
which make Litigation measures or alternatives to the project identified in the final
EIR infeasible.
B. As determined in Section II, Findings on Significant Environmental Effects of
the Project and Facts in Support of Findings, only one significant impact identified
could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance. The one unavoidable significant
effect on the environment is the exceedance of the 24-hour PM10 standard during the
full buildout of Shoreline Center. Any project of this scale located in San Rafael
would have similar exceedance of PM,o standards. PM,o consists of fine dust
particles, the most common source of which is road dust, diesel soot, automobile
tailpipe exhaust, abrasion of tires and breaks, construction operations and wind
storms. Exceedance of the PM,o emission standard is a common problem in the Bay
Area and much of California. Monitoring results indicate that exceedance of the
-47-
24-hour PMIp standard occasionally occur in San Rafael. PMI0 emissions from full
project buildout generated traffic would contribute to exceedance of the 24-hour PMIO
standard in the general project vicinity. Full buildout of Shoreline Center would not
be able to occur until required traffic improvements, estimated to begin construction in
seven to ten years, have been installed -The EIR also determined that PMIo emission
from full project buildout traffic generated will be reduced by implementing
employer -based trip reduction plans and transportation systems management programs.
The construction and operation of Home Depot will not exceed PM10 standards and is
not considered a significant unavoidable environmental effect.
C. PROTECT BENEFITS. The primary benefits of the project embodied in the
Master Plan are set forth below.
1. The proposed project is consistent with the City's policies for
development of the project site. Approval of the project is consistent in principle
with, and furthers, the objectives, Goals and Policies of the San Rafael General Plan
2000. Economic development has been one of the chief goals of the General Plan
which is implemented through various policies. The General Plan background section,
page 164, recognizes that sales of home furnishing, building materials and automobiles
per household in San Rafael are at least three times that of Marin County and that the
City has strong advantages in these sectors and the City can maintain and enhance its
strong retail position in these sectors. The background section of the General Plan
also states the City must take a proactive role in the economic and fiscal health of the
City. Land Use Goal LU -B addresses these economic issues and states "Allow
economic growth which supplies jobs for existing and future residents and maintains
the City's ability to finance public improvements and human services; and guide such
development in order to protect existing neighborhoods and natural resources."
General Plan Land Use Policy LU -13(g) which allows high tax generating specialty
retail uses, is one policy which implements this goal. General Plan Circulation Policy
C-7, which establishes the Priority Projects Procedure (PPP) for projects in traffic
impacted areas recognizes the economic development goal of the City by establishing
high tax generation as a criteria for approval. Home Depot has received PPP
approval as a high tax generating use. The project is consistent with the Zoning
Ordinance including Planned Development regulations contained in Chapter 7, parking
regulations contained in Chapter 18, PAR requirements contained in Chapter 16
Section 14.16.150-G, and sign regulations contained in Chapter 19.
2. The project will generate a significant sales tax and property tax revenue
for the City of San RafaeL In addition, if Home Depot is approved and operates at
the project site, purchases made by consumers from the San Rafael area at Home
Depot locations in Rohnert Park and E1 Cerrito, estimated in the Economic and
Planning Systems (EPS) report dated August 27, 1993 (attached hereto as Exhibit B-
1) to be $93,300, will likely be made in San Rafael. The EPS report further estimated
-48-
that the City of San Rafael will benefit if Home Depot located at the project site by
receiving approximately $129,300 in net new sales taxes. The location of Home
Depot in the City of San Rafael will also minimize the risk that these purchases will
occur outside of San Rafael at a Home Depot that might be located elsewhere in
Marin County, which the EPS report projected would result in a loss to San Rafael of
$257,340. The EPS report concluded that the difference in sales tax revenues to the
City if Home Depot locates in San Rafael (i.e., gain of $129,360) compared to Home
Depot locating elsewhere in Marin County (i.e., loss of $257,340) is equal to
$386,700.
3. During the construction period, the project will generate an undetermined
but significant number of temporary jobs and after completion the Shoreline Center
project is expected to generate 1,900 permanent jobs. The Home Depot phase of the
project will create 150 to 175 permanent jobs.
4. The project will facilitate planned development in East San Rafael in a
manner consistent with City policies on urban commercial growth and the Master Plan
provides development standards that will coordinate the development of the entire 42+
acre project.
5. The project will provide coordination of development of this project with
the development of the Shoreline Park Band and will improve access to the Shoreline
Park.
6. The project will provide enhanced buffer areas of native plant and animal
habitat along adjacent property lines and remove existing non-native invasive plants
that would not be provided or removed without the project.
D. FINDINGS. Based on all of the foregoing specific economic, social and other
considerations, the City has determined that the benefits of the project outweigh its
unavoidable adverse environmental effects, which are deemed acceptable.
-49-
V. CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN..
As explained in Section IV, "STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDER-
ATIONS", the project substantially conforms to, and materially contributes to the
achievement of, key goals and policies of the General Plan.
Certain specific General Plan policies have been addressed in the discussion of this
project, all of which this project is consistent with. Among those specific policies are
the following, each of which is accompanied by a brief explanation of the manner in
which the project is consistent with such policy and, where appropriate, of the
meaning of such policy.
A. LAND USE GOALS AND POLICIES,.
LU -13 g. "Light Industrial/Office: Includes motor vehicle service, contractor uses;
light manufacturing; distribution; warehousing and storage, incidental
employee -serving retail/service; offices; specialty retail uses. Specialty
retail uses may be allowed to occupy minor portions of the Light Indus-
trial/Office districts provided that intensity and traffic allocation require-
ments are met and the integrity of the district is not threatened."
The term "district" or "districts" means all of the lands, taken together, which
are designated "Light Industrial/Office" on the Land Use Plan Maps which are a part
of the General Plan.
The retail aspects of this project are consistent with the limitation that specialty
retail uses occupy "minor" portions of the Light Industrial/Office districts, and the
project is consistent with the requirement that traffic allocation requirements are met.
The project does not threaten the integrity of the Light Industrial/Office district.
B. EAST SAN RAFAEL POLICIES.
ESR -8. "New Business Development. In addition to Citywide economic devel-
opment priorities, encourage and give priority to new business develop-
ment which benefits the East San Rafael neighborhood through provision
of needed services, low traffic impacts, or employment of a high per-
centage of neighborhood residents."
ESR -11. "Building and Automotive Services. Maintain availability of sites for
building, automotive and related service industries important to San
Rafael's economy and needed for the convenience of its residents and
businesses."
-50-
ESR -13. "Limited Retail/Service Uses. Allow limited retail and commercial
service uses such as deli's, copy shops, etc. which serve area businesses
or employees to locate throughout industrial/office areas. 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. Such uses include automobile sales centers and lumber
yards. "
ESR -8, ESR -11 and ESR -13 are to be read together, and no one of them is to
be taken as describing an exclusive list of the uses permitted in East San Rafael. Uses
permitted under any one of them (or under other specific policies) are permitted in
East San Rafael.
ESR -8 refers to and permits uses which further Citywide economic development
priorities. This project furthers Citywide economic development priorities, is consis-
tent with ESR -8, and is permitted in East San Rafael.
Although permitted pursuant to ESR -8, this project would also be permitted
under ESR -11, in that Home Depot is a part of, and provides services and support to,
the building industry important to San Rafael's economy and needed for the conve-
nience of its residents and businesses.
Although permitted pursuant to ESR -8, this project would also be permitted
under ESR -13, in that specialty retail uses in the project together constitute "limited
retail building square footage" in the context of the project as a whole; large yard
operations, in the context of current building materials retail operations, are frequently
enclosed (as evidenced by the operations of other building materials and lumber
retailers in San Rafael and other areas), as the lumber and building materials sales
areas of Home Depot are proposed to be enclosed; and, it is the intention of ESR -13
to recognize that areas designated Light Industrial/Office constitute almost all of the
supply of sites suitable for uses which require large acreages.
-51-
1X14 am I 1 1.1 v 8 :
ECONOMIC & PLANNING SYSTEMS r ,
i
■ Land Economics ■ Real Estate ■ Public Finance
IZZ
FINAL REPORT
Economic and Fiscal Impacts of the Home Depot
Prepared for:
City of San Rafael
Prepared by:
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
August 1993
EPS #3126
1815 FOURTH STREET, Sun -F. B BF.RKELky, CALIFORNIA 94710-1910 FAX: 510-841-9208 PHONE: 510-841-9190
SACJIl WV9n 011irr F+x 916-649 2070 I'uutie 916-649-8010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PP
I. INTRODUCTION
Background........................................................................................................................I-1
Approachand Methodology...........................................................................................I-1
Organizationof Report.....................................................................................................I-1
II. ECONOMIC AND FISCAL IMPACTS
Home Depot Market Area ........................................
Potential Net Increase In Sales Tax Revenues .......
Taxable Sales In Communities With Home Depot
III. SURVEY OF OTHER COMMUNITIES
Strategies Adopted by Existing Retailers
to Respond to Home Depot Competition..
Net Impact on Local Sales Tax Generation
of Home Depot Opening ...............................
Impact on Existing Retailers .........................
.................................... II -1
....................................11 -2
.................................... II -4
..................................... III -2
............................................................. III-3
............................................................. III -4
APPENDIX A: LIST OF SOURCES AND PERSONS CONTACTED
LIST OF TABLES
PA=
Table 1 -- Estimate of Net New Sales Tax Revenue From Home Depot II -3
San Rafael Home Depot Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
Table 2 -- Estimate of Potential Tax Revenue Loss Without Home Depot II -5
San Rafael Home Depot Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
Table 3 -- Changes in Building Supply Taxable Sales 11-6
in Cities with Home Depot
San Rafael Home Depot Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
Table 4 — Percent Change in Building Material Taxable Sales 11-7
in Cities with a Home Depot
San Rafael Home Depot Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
Table 5 — Net Increase in Sales without Considering Home Depot Sales 11-9
Selected Bay Area Cities with Home Depot Stores
Final Report
August 27, 1993
I. INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
The City of San Rafael Planning staff have requested Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) to
investigate potential economic impacts that may occur in San Rafael related to the
development of the proposed Home Depot at the proposed Shoreline Center.
In particular, planning staff have requested that EPS address two questions. The first
question concerns the potential of a new Home Depot to improve sales tax revenues in the
City of San Rafael. The second question concerns how a new Home Depot might affect
local home improvement and hardware retailers. The purpose of this report is to provide
City of San Rafael Councilmembers with additional information concerning the economic
and fiscal implications of approving the Home Depot project.
APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
To identify local sales tax impacts associated with the opening of Home Depots in the Bay
Area, EPS collected and analyzed State Board of Equalization sales tax data for the years,
1985 to 1992, and in particular, years immediately preceding and following the opening of
Home Depots in other Bay Area communities. We also utilized data from Home Depot on
annual sales and point of sales at other Home Depots in the Bay Area.
EPS surveyed finance, economic development, and planning staff in Bay Area communities
in which Home Depots have recently opened. EPS conducted these interviews in order to
identify retail conditions in these communities before and after the opening of Home
Depots. These interviews aimed to: 1) identify how extensively the local market was
served by home improvement and hardware retailers before the Home Depot opening;
2)what impacts the Home Depot opening had on existing retailers, if any; 3) what strategies
existing retailers adopted to compete with Home Depots; and 4) what sales tax revenue
impacts were generated by the Home Depot opening. Communities surveyed in this
analysis include Concord, El Cerrito, Fremont, Rohnert Park, San Carlos, and Vallejo.
ORGANIZATION OF REPORT
This report is organized into three chapters. Chapter II provides an analysis of the
potential economic and fiscal impacts of the proposed Home Depot in San Rafael and
existing Home Depots in other communities. Chapter III reviews strategies that existing
retailers have adopted to compete successfully with Home Depots, provides anecdotal
information related to net local sales tax revenue impacts, and discusses the impacts that
Home Depots have had on existing retailers.
1-1
Final Report
August 27,1993
II. ECONOMIC AND FISCAL IMPACTS
This chapter addresses the potential economic and fiscal impacts that could be associated
with the opening of the new Home Depot outlet in San Rafael. There has been concern
expressed by the existing hardware and building supply retailers that the new Home Depot
will not lead to a net increase in sales tax revenues for the City. They contend that the
Home Depot will only siphon off sales from existing stores and thus, the net new increase
in sales tax revenues will be minimal. This analysis presents estimates of the potential
increase in sales tax revenues should the Home Depot open in San Rafael, and contrasts this
potential increase with the decrease in sales tax revenues that will occur if the store does not
open. We also present information concerning historical sales tax data for other Bay Area
communities with Home Depots and assess the impact of those stores on the overall
building supply market before and after the Home Depot opened. Lastly, we discuss per
capita sales in the building supply category and whether the San Rafael market for these
goods is saturated, as was purported by Sedway & Associates.
HOME DEPOT MARKET AREA
Home Depots generally serve a large regional market area. According to representatives of
Home Depot, the typical population threshold for a Home Depot is about 200,000 residents.
Marin County with a 1993 population of about 241,000 represents one market area for
Home Depot. The new Home Depot in San Rafael is intended to serve customers from
Novato to the north, to Sausalito to the south and include the rural communities
immediately to the west of San Rafael and San Anselmo. Home Depot does not include the
Marin County coastal communities in their market area for the San Rafael site. The market
area for the San Rafael store, in essence, includes the greater Highway 101 corridor within
Marin County.
Existing hardware/home improvement stores in San Rafael serve a smaller market area
than Home Depot. Most smaller, independent hardware/home improvement stores serve a
local market, such as from 3 to 5 miles, which represents only a portion of San Rafael.
However, in San Rafael existing retailers serve a somewhat broader area than typical
independent stores. San Rafael currently attracts hardware/home improvement sales from
outside the City limits. This fact is born out by sales per capita data for San Rafael versus
Marin County as a whole. In 1992, building supplies sales per capita in San Rafael were
$1,677, while in Marin County the same figure was $552. As a side note, it is important to
remember that 1992 figures reflect the impact of the current recession. Per capita sales in
San Rafael in the late 1980s for this category ranged from $2,100 to $2,300 per capita and for
Marin County this figure ranged from $900 to $1,165.
Given that Home Depot has a regional drawing capability versus a local one, the new Home
Depot in San Rafael would expand the City's drawing potential for sales in hardware/home
improvement goods. This expanded market area translates into additional sales tax
revenues for the City. The amount of new sales tax revenue and any loss of existing sales
tax revenue are discussed in the next section.
Final Report
August 27, 1993
There has been some concern expressed that Home Depot would open an additional store
between Rohnert Park and the San Rafael location. According to Home Depot staff, they
have no intention of opening additional stores in this market, given the size of the market
and its potential for growth. As noted above, the minimum population threshold for a
Home Depot store is 200,000. Marin County's growth potential as noted by other
consultants is limited due to land supply and slow growth policies. Home Depot does not
foresee that additional development will occur to warrant another Home Depot other than
the one proposed in San Rafael. However, if the San Rafael site is not approved, Home
Depot will find another location in Marin County.
POTENTIAL NET INCREASE IN SALES TAX REVENUES
Table 1 presents a summary of the potential increase in taxable sales and sales tax revenues
in the building supply category for San Rafael. This analysis uses total 1992 taxable sales in
building supplies and farm implements from the State Board of Equalization as an indicator
of potential sales tax impacts. As shown, San Rafael had about $85.3 million in sales, and
correspondingly, received about $853,200 in sales tax revenue from building supplies.
Home Depot expects to generate about $30 million in sales for their first year in San Rafael
which would generate about $300,000 in sales tax revenue for the City. In order to estimate
what the net new addition in sales tax revenue might be, several items must be considered,
as follows.
First, the County of Marin currently loses customers and thus, building supply sales, to
Home Depots in Rohnert Park and El Cerrito. Based on Point of Sales Survey data gathered
by Home Depots at the cash register (i.e., zip code of the customer), it is estimated that 13
percent of the Rohnert Park Home Depot stores' sales are from Marin County residents.
The El Cerrito store, which opened about two months ago, estimates that 12 percent of its
sales are from Marin County residents. The dollar figures associated with this sales leakage
from Marin County are shown in Table 1. Lost sales to the Rohnert Park store are
estimated at $5.07 million and to the 0 Cerrito store, $4.26 million. This amount of sales,
about $9.33 million, would likely occur at the San Rafael Home Depot, should it open. First
year sales from the Home Depot store are estimated at $30 million. Assuming that the sales
captured from the Rohnert Park and El Cerrito store are included in this amount, additional
new sales for the new store would be $20.67 million.
Second, it is suggested that when Home Depot stores open in a particular community,
existing hardware and building supply retailers lose from 10 to 30 percent of their sales to
Home Depot. For this analysis, we have used the mid -point of 20 percent. The rationale for
this figure is provided in the following section of this chapter. Thus, potential loss in sales
at existing hardware and building supply retailers is estimated at $17.06 million.
After considering the potential loss in sales at existing stores, net new sales with Home
Depot would total about $98.3 million. The net gain between 1992 sales and sales with
Home Depot, accounting for a loss at some existing stores, would total $12.9 million. This
amount of net new sales would generate about $129,400 in annual sales tax revenues to
the City.
11-2
Table 1
Estimate of Net New Sales Tax Revenue From Home Depot
San Rafael Home Depot Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
Total Annual Estimated Annual
Item Taxable Sales Sales Tax Revenues (1)
Building Supply/Farm Equip.
1992 Taxable Sales in San Rafael (2) $85,320,000 $853,200
NET NEW SALES IN SAN RAFAEL
Sales Captured from Rohnert Park
Home Depot - 13% (3) $5,070,000 $50,700
Sales Captured by El Cerrito
Home Depot - 12% (3) $4,260,000 $42,600
Additional New Sales from Home Depot
In San Rafael (4) $20,670,000 $206,700
Total Sales in San Rafael w/ Home Depot $115,320,000 $1,153,200
20% Reduction in Sales
at Existing Stores (5) ($17,064,000) ($170,640)
Total Sales with Home Depot $98,256,000 $982,560
TOTAL NET GAIN IN SALES $12,936,000 $129,360
(1) The City receives one percent of total sales tax revenue.
(2) Based on data from the State Board of Equalization.
(3) Based on data provided by Home Depot and Its consultant, Thompson Associates.
13% of the Rohnert Park Home Depot stores customers are from Marin County and
12% of the EI Cerrito Store's customers are from Marin County. It is assumed that
these customers would shop at the new San Rafael Home Depot.
Rohnert Park total sales are estimated at $39 million per year, EI Cerrito are estimated at $35.5 million per year.
(4) Represents the additional sales from the expanded market area which Home Depot serves, i.e., $30 million less capture of
Marin County residents In Rohnert Park and EI Cerrito.
(5) Assumed impact of Home Depot opening; based on interviews conducted by EPS, and data from Sedway 8 Associates
letters, and recent newspaper articles. This represents the worse case scenario.
Sources: City of San Rafael; Home Depot; Thompson Associates;
and Economic and Planning Systems, Inc.
II -3
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. H.13126SRF1MODELITBIR.XLS
Final Report
August 27, 1993
Table 2 presents an analysis of the potential impacts of Home Depot not locating in San
Rafael but elsewhere in Marin County. Representatives from Home Depot have indicated
that if the project is not approved in San Rafael they will find another site in Marin County,
ideally close to San Rafael. Home Depot has every intention of locating in Marin County so
as to serve this market. Although Home Depot does not have alternative sites identified at
this time, they will immediately search out new sites if the San Rafael site is not approved.
It is very likely that if Home Depot locates elsewhere in Marin County that there will still be
a net loss of sales at existing hardware and home improvement retailers. Home Depot has a
regional drawing power. Most local retailers' market area is smaller than Home Depot's,
i.e., they do not have the same regional drawing power. It is difficult to assess exactly what
this loss may be; however, it is likely to be less than if the Home Depot opened in San
Rafael. We assume that some shoppers will continue to do their shopping within the City
limits for convenience reasons. For this analysis, we assume that 15 percent of existing sales
would be lost or about $12.8 million. In addition to this loss, the City would also forego the
net new sales associated with the Home Depot, i.e., $12.9 million. Thus, if Home Depot
does not locate in San Rafael, the City could lose up to $25.7 million in annual taxable sales
or $257,340 in annual sales tax revenue. Therefore, the difference in sales tax revenues to
the City if Home Depot locates in San Rafael (i.e., gain of $129,360) compared to Home
Depot locating elsewhere in Marin County (i.e., loss of $257,340) is equal to $386,700.
TAXABLE SALES IN COMMUNITIES WITH HOME DEPOT
This section reviews taxable sales data for communities in the Bay Area that have recently
acquired a Home Depot. These communities include Concord, Fremont, Rohnert Park, San
Carlos and Vallejo. Although a Home Depot just opened in El Cerrito, sales tax data for
1993, which reflects the opening, is not available. Table 3 presents taxable sales data in the
building supplies and farm implements category from the State Board of Equalization for
the years 1985 to 1992, which is used in Table 4. All figures are in thousands of constant
1992 dollars. Home Depot began its presence in the Bay Area in 1986. Table 3 also shows
the year in which the Home Depot opened in each community.
Concord has the highest taxable sales in the building supply and farm implements category
of the five cities reviewed, with sales in 1992 at about $127.9 million. Rohnert Park, whose
Home Depot opened about 10 months ago, has the lowest sales of the five cities, with about
$35.5 million in 1992. These data reflect the effects of the current recession. As shown,
taxable sales in building supplies for 1990 to 1992 have remained relatively flat or decreased
in some cases, reflecting the effects of the current recession. In the case of Fremont, sales
have dropped significantly from a 1990 high of $121.2 million to $90 million in 1992.
Fremont staff indicated that this drop in sales is due to a lack of construction activity in
the City.
Table 4 presents a summary of the percent change in taxable sales in building supplies in
these communities the year after Home Depot opened in each community (the years vary
for each city). In all five cases, there was an overall increase in taxable sales after Home
fi-4
Table 2
Estimate of Potential Tax Revenue Loss without Home Depot (1)
San Rafael Home Depot Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
Item
Building Supply/Farm Equip.
1992 Taxable Sales In San Rafael
15% Reduction in Sales
at Existing Stores (2)
Foregone Net New Sales (3)
Total Annual Estimated Annual
Taxable Sales Sales Tax Revenues
$85,320,000 $853,200
($12,798,000) ($127,980)
($12,936,000) ($129,360)
Net Sales in San Rafael $59,586,000 $595,860
TOTAL NET LOSS IN SALES ($25,734,000) ($257,340)
(1) Estimate of impact if Home Depot does not locate in San Rafael but elsewhere in Marin County, as is their intention.
(2) Equals the estimated sales that would be lost at San Rafael existing harware and home Improvement retailers 125
If Home Depot located elsewhere in Marin County. Actual sales may be more or less.
(3) See Table 1.
Sources: City of San Rafael; Home Depot; Thompson Associates;
and Economic and Planning Systems, Inc.
11-5
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 8127193 H.'W26SRFW00ELITBIR.XLS
II -6
m
C2
Z
C0
v
rn
�
LO
N
m
O
"Ji
M
N
r
64
69
69
Ki
69
r
LO
LO
LO
rn
CLI
O
r
(D
C}
'-
T
T
Cl)
T
O
T
O
M
CD
qqt
T
r
r
64
6%
69
64
co
O
�
O
Il-
Cl
Nt
(D
co
r
(•)
0)
N
0
r
r
N
04
r
m
.1i
6S
r
64
U'+
d�
— CO
T
(D
r
CA
(D
Ch
N
r
f,-
CL o 0)
r
CD
C�_
r
� 0 0)0
C14 r
f9
LO
E9
It
E9
N N
E9
EA
C �
r
—
(D
N
O
Ul)
m pl oo
Cn
co
U')
N
Ld
CA
m
C C
69
(n V
CO
cc C
O
IcT
'T
LO
a)
NLO
r
O
N
r
O
f-
CA
Cn
M
O
o CA
[D
a0
O
d N
ca C
F L
O >.
_
(p
(CD
CD
IN
N
O
CU
cr)
r
Cr)
r C
co
O
N
to
co
N V
d lfl
CL
V E
o
rn
o
a�
o
v
(mD
of
� N
r
ER
I-
(H
Eii
69
M
6A
U.
to
d �
V
Cc
r
O
Q
m
r
co
rn
N
rn
r-
L- d
(is D C
a)
T
r
r
rn
rn
T
a w
w S.
-c
.ri
>
T
>.
>.
CL
E O
Ci
a)
o
>
..
O
Q
tL
Z
N o.IM
_
0
C �
d
E
O
M =
r
,Y
C
O
4)
a
dl
G
a-
«.
c
°
r
o
d IM
m m
E
u
c
V
'a�")
c
V
IDr
Q
c
N
�
FO- U N
U =
li
II -6
m
C2
Z
�
0- �
A
�■�
�
4).
o
k
CD
.0
3
tk00
2
0
k
�
e■Ao
v 3 3 -5-
6
� 3
. �
0 t
t»
3
$ t
&
3
t
340,
.0r
�
o
o
k
CD
»
cp
2
0
k
$�
■ �
e■Ao
v 3 3 -5-
:0: 0
°
0 t
$ 0
3
3
t
340,
.0r
A
■ ■
®a
to
6%
K
$�
■ �
e■Ao
v 3 3 -5-
:0: 0
°
0 t
$ 0
3
400
6-e
■
4A
c
o
o
0
.
t
3 �
so
6%
Final Report
August 27,1993
Depot opened. In the case of Rohnert Park and San Carlos, this increase is significant, at 85
percent and 52 percent, respectively. In the cases of Concord, Fremont, and Vallejo, the
increase in sales is smaller but still positive. The percent increase in sales for the 1985 to
1992 period in all communities is significant, ranging from 23 percent to 138 percent.
There has been much anecdotal information circulating concerning the loss of sales at
existing retailers due to the opening of Home Depot. The amount of this loss has been
estimated at from 10 to 30 percent. Table 5 presents an analysis of the actual loss in the first
year after Home Depot opened in Concord, Fremont and San Carlos. Data for Rohnert Park
and Vallejo is not available. In Concord, the Home Depot opened in April of 1991; taxable
sales in that year are reported at $111.9 million. Home Depot reports that sales for the
partial year at the Concord store were $25.1 million. Thus, sales at existing building supply
retailers, not including Home Depot sales, totaled about $86.8 million. Taxable sales in the
previous year, i.e., without Home Depot, were $102.4 million. Based on this data, there was
a loss in sales at existing retailers of about $15.6 million, which represents a 14 percent
reduction in sales. Thus, the impact of the Home Depot on existing retailers in Concord for
the first year of operation can be estimated at 14 percent.
In Fremont, the net impact of the opening of Home Depot was positive by $4.5 million or 4
percent of existing sales. That is, in Fremont, existing retailers experienced an increase in
sales rather than a loss after Home Depot opened.
In the case of San Carlos, there was a net loss of 11 percent in sales for the first year Home
Depot opened. Home Depot in San Carlos opened in July of 1989. As discussed above, San
Carlos experienced a significant growth in taxable sales once Home Depot opened. The San
Carlos store serves the broader San Francisco market, according to Home Depot. Sales per
capita in San Carlos also bear out this conclusion.
Based on the performance of other communities with Home Depots, the impact on existing
retailers appears to be less than that reported in interviews with store owners. Although
this data is not conclusive, it does suggest that the impact on existing stores could range
from a loss of 14 percent to a small gain in sales. Even though the experience of these three
stores may not be conclusive, we feel it is reasonable to estimate the potential loss of sales at
existing stores at 20 percent which is the mid -point of the reported impact by store owners.
We feel this figure represents a realistic and perhaps conservative estimate of potential
impact.
11-8
II -9
�y
N
O
A
Q7
0
0]
O
O
O
It
_
\
T
a0
m
C
(�
=
EA
64).
66%
m
N
�
m
O)
c
1
�
W
Q
�
LL
C
C
m
IT
c0
�
�
N
0
°v
a
ii
E
O$
O
O
N
f-
N
U)
E06
r
cd
N
.1d
Q�cp
i -V
LL
y
LL
r
t4
Eg
6f3
Ff?
U
`o
0
o9W
N
ay
O
N
N
N
G
�
m
a)
fl-
CD
co
LO
OD
ao
(V
M
r
O
r
O
O
OD
«
V
o
r
!n
a0
CV
Lo'
0
U
a
Q
r
6%
�
6
6f.
6v
d
(D
�
Cdl
m
E`
`o
m
c
O «
C
Q1 «
«!?L
a
CL
C
..
O C
c0
o
v
a
C
`°
o
19
a5
FL
L
CL d
E
0
O .3
M
0
O
=
••
O
0 art
E E CDQ,
0
Z
o
a
G
eo
=
`-
m -0
rn
0
m
c
m
as
v U
a
O
d c au
>-
_
�
O
eu
CE
m
m
vl
0
S. au
0 a
,0
v
w
O
O
' m
cQ
a
""o
a`9
v
a N
cc
13
a
�
= v
� �
m
ao
tin
a10i
Ln C «O.
m v
_
L
,p 0
m E
ltf
N
°�
t0 C
°'..
v
Hco
r
z
m
z
I.-zu)
}
II -9
�y
Final Report
August 27, 1993
III. SURVEY OF OTHER COMMUNITIES
In this chapter, we discuss the impacts on existing hardware and home improvement
retailers that result from competition with Home Depot outlets in other Bay Area
communities. We also assess the strategies that hardware and home improvement stores
have used to compete with Home Depot. Finally, we address the net fiscal impact of Home
Depots in these communities. Cities surveyed include Concord, El Cerrito, Fremont,
Rohnert Park, San Carlos, and Vallejo.
EPS has arrived at five observations about the home improvement and hardware retail
market, and in particular, about the impact of Home Depot on this market. These
observations are:
1. Many home improvement/hardware stores located near Home Depots have competed
successfully with Home Depots by differentiating themselves from Home Depot.
Successful differentiation strategies include the development of specialty lines of
business and service provision.
2. Increases in the number of shopping trips to Home Depots can be used to increase sales
at existing and new stores near Home Depots.
3. Home Depot openings have generated positive net impacts on local sales tax revenues
in every instance studied by EPS. The sizes of the net impacts have been estimated to
vary from location to location.
4. In most instances studied by EPS, only a few existing home improvement/ hardware
retailers went out of business at the time that a Home Depot opened nearby. However,
these store closures were often precipitated by events besides the Home Depot opening.
5. All the stores that have closed have been of one type: small, privately -held stores that
offer the same range of goods and services available at Home Depots but at higher
prices.
The bases for these observations regarding the home improvement and hardware retail
market are presented in the following three sections. The information provided in this
chapter is based on interviews with finance, economic development, and planning staff in
the communities of Rohnert Park, Santa Rosa, Vallejo, F1 Cerrito, Concord, San Carlos,
Union City, and Fremont. Where possible, home improvement/hardware store managers
have been contacted as well. A list of sources and persons contacted is provided in
Appendix A.
Final Report
August 27, 1993
STRATEGIES ADOPTED BY EXISTING RETAILERS
TO RESPOND TO HOME DEPOT COMPETITION
This section provides more detailed information about the strategies that retailers have
adopted to respond to competition from Home Depot. It also discusses two observations
about these strategies. The first is that many stores have successfully competed with Home
Depot by developing specific market niches that Home Depot does not serve. The second is
that some stores are able to take advantage of Home Depot's store traffic to increase sales
for themselves.
In each of the communities surveyed, many stores have adopted strategies for competing
successfully with Home Depot outlets. In general, these strategies involve identifying a
market niche that Home Depot does not occupy, or providing a service that Home Depot
does not provide. These market stratification strategies require that existing hardware and
home improvement stores actively seek ways in which to differentiate themselves from
Home Depot, and/or ways in which to cooperate with Home Depot. The ways in which
these strategies have been adopted around the Bay Area are discussed below.
In El Cerrito, existing hardware and home improvement stores have developed several
tactics for competing with Home Depot. El Cerrito Mill and Lumber is using its equipment
and materials to construct a Victorian facade for its building as a demonstration of what
home improvement services they can provide. They have also met directly with Home
Depot management to discuss ways the two stores can cooperate. Past Time Hardware has
evaluated its inventory and has cast off its lines of lighting and lighting fixtures because it
does not believe that it can compete successfully with Home Depot in this product line. In
addition, a number of small businesses in El Cerrito that may be negatively affected by the
Home Depot have organized to discuss a joint marketing strategy that would differentiate
them as a group from Home Depot.
In San Carlos, many of the hardware and home improvement stores that have competed
successfully with Home Depot have pursued strategies related to the development of
market niches. Thus, in San Carlos, successful competitors of the Home Depot include a
specialty paint store, a specialty lighting store, a specialty tools store, and a specialty lumber
yard, among others. It is not clear that these retailers have directly acted to change their
product lines so as to occupy a market niche. However, it is certainly the case that stores
that have occupied specialty niches have prospered.
Management at Marcus Supply (the former C. Marcus Hardware) in Oakland also has
suggested that it is possible for smaller retailers to develop successful strategies to compete
with discount retailers. Store management did not care to specify the details of the
strategies they intend to adopt. However, they did comment that "it is necessary to be
smart and good at what you do" when developing strategies.
111-2
Filial Report
August 27,1993
Locating near big -box retailers such as Home Depot is also a potentially successful strategy
for both home improvement/hardware retailers and other businesses. There are numerous
newspaper and magazine articles that report the success of this strategy, particularly for
retailers competing with Wal-Mart. Many retailers have found that by eliminating product
lines that Wal-Mart provides better, and by providing services that Wal-Mart cannot
provide, they can not only survive but improve their business by taking advantage of the
shopping trips that Wal-Mart generates.
The comments of Orchard Supply Hardware's vice president of marketing suggest that the
same dynamic exists in the home improvement/hardware market. Orchard Supply
Hardware (OSH) specializes in repair and maintenance, whereas Home Depot specializes in
sales of the goods and merchandise that may eventually need repair. OSH has recently
opened an outlet very near the site of the proposed Home Depot site in San Rafael. OSH
opened this outlet knowing that a Home Depot outlet might locate nearby.
Although the information provided by City staff in the remaining cities surveyed are not as
detailed as that for El Cerrito and San Carlos, no information provided contradicted our
observations.
NET IMPACT ON LOCAL SALES TAX
GENERATION OF HOME DEPOT OPENING
Detailed sales tax data for individual stores is very difficult to obtain. This is because sales
tax data at the individual store level is considered confidential information. This section
discusses anecdotal information concerning the net impacts of Home Depot openings on
local sales tax revenues. The conclusions presented in this section are qualitative in nature,
and are based on observations about local marketplaces as well as information provided by
finance and economic development staff.
As discussed in Chapter II, the presence of Home Depot has had a net positive impact on
sales tax revenues in all of the communities surveyed. However, the magnitude of the
impact has varied from location to location.
In Rohnert Park, the sales tax revenues generated by the City's new Home Depot are almost
predominantly new to the City. This is because the pre-existing hardware or home
improvement retail base was very small in comparison to the sales generated by the Home
Depot.
In San Carlos, sales tax revenues generated by Home Depot also appear to be largely new to
the City. However, this is not because of the absence of a pre-existing hardware and home
improvement retail base. Instead, it is because most of the retailers in the City have been
unaffected or slightly affected by competition with the Home Depot, for reasons discussed
in the previous section.
III -3
Final Report
August 27, 1993
Sedway & Associates has provided Council with an analysis of the sales tax revenue
impacts on the City of Vallejo. Although we do not disagree with their analysis, we differ
on the conclusions drawn by Sedway & Associates. Sedway's analysis shows that some
existing hardware and home improvement retailers have suffered a loss in sales since the
opening of Home Depot. However, it is important to note that their analysis shows there
has been an overall increase in sales in the building supply category. Sedway notes that
overall, the decline in sales averaged 11 percent for existing retailers. Our analysis in
Chapter II confirms this conclusion, that is, certain existing hardware and home
improvement retailers have experienced a loss of sales ranging from 11 to 14 percent, after a
Home Depot opens.
In Concord, staff have indicated that it is too complicated for them to assess the proportion
of Home Depot sales tax dollars that are new to the City. This is because the City has lost
two hardware stores (C. Marcus Hardware and Simons) but has simultaneously added an
OSH, a Yardbirds, and a Home Depot. One Concord planning staff member suggested that
the Concord Home Depot tax dollars might be as much as 80 percent new because until
recently the store had been the only Home Depot serving eastern Contra Costa County.
However, this assessment cannot be verified.
The El Cerrito store opened in July 1993, and as a result there is no sales tax data available
yet. Fremont staff were not available to comment on the net impact of the Fremont Home
Depot's contribution to the City's sales tax base.
IMPACT ON EXISTING RETAILERS
In each of the communities surveyed for this analysis, the opening of a Home Depot in a
community was associated with the closure of a few local hardware and/or home
improvement stores. However, the reasons why these stores closed are complicated, and
suggest that the opening of the Home Depot itself is not the sole contributing factor. For
example, a Simons hardware store and a C. Marcus Hardware store closed in Concord
shortly after the opening of the Home Depot. However, the Home Depot was preceded by
the openings of a Yardbirds and an Orchard Supply Hardware store. Thus, by the time that
the Concord Home Depot opened, the closed stores' competition had already substantially
increased with the addition of OSH and Yardbirds.
Several other store closures in Bay Area communities have been associated with but, in EPS'
view, not directly attributable to Home Depot openings. In San Carlos, two small stores
closed. The Bruce Bauer store reportedly closed because two grade separation projects in
the City eliminated the store's property. The Star Hardware store closed at the time the
Home Depot opened, but the owners were reportedly going to retire anyway. In El Cerrito,
a True Value Hardware store closed six months before the opening of the Home Depot.
However, that store had already been experiencing financial difficulties. In Oakland, C.
Marcus Hardware closed due to concerns that it could not compete successfully with big -
box discount retailers. However, a private party has purchased the business and has re-
opened it as Marcus Supply with approximately the same product and service lines as the
former business.
III -4
Final Report
August 27, 1993
While it is difficult to specify the exact reasons for store closures, it is possible to generalize
about the type of store that closed. The hardware and home improvement stores that closed
were typically small and independently owned and operated. They provided a wide range
of items, ranging from gardening supplies to plumbing to construction tools and materials.
Thus, they mirrored the range of goods provided by Home Depot but did not have the
massive purchasing power that permits Home Depot to offer its low prices. The stores that
have not gone out of business have typically been other chain hardware stores, stores that
occupy a particular niche in the hardware and home improvement market (e.g., lighting or
specialty milling), or stores that emphasize qualities such as service and employee expertise
that cannot be matched by Home Depot.
111-5
r
ECONOMIC &PLANNING SYSTEMS Final Report 1p,,
August 27, 993
Appendix A:
List of Sources and Persons Contacted
Final Report
August 27, 1993
LIST OF SOURCES AND PERSONS CONTACTED
Altwary, Dan; C. Marcus Hardware
Cullinan, Liz; Planning Department, City of San Carlos
Fontes, Mark; Economic Development Department, City of Vallejo
Freedman, Gary; Orchard Supply Hardware, City of San Rafael
Golick, David; Planning Department, City of Concord
Harrell, Mike; Finance Department, City of Rohnert Park
Liu, Beth; Finance Department, City of San Carlos
Panek, Ray; Redevelopment Agency, City of Concord
Phillips, Ed; Planning Department, City of El Cerrito
Ranch, Marjorie; Chamber of Commerce, City of San Carlos
Raycraft, Gerry; Redevelopment Director, City of El Cerrito
Rogers, Greg; Department of Administrative Services, City of Santa Rosa
Skanky, Paul; City of Rohnert Park