No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCD Target 125 Shoreline ParkwayDepartment: Community Prepared by: Agenda Item No: 12 Meeting Date: October 19, 2009 City Manager Approval: SUBJECT: Target — 125 Shoreline Parkway — Review of Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH # 2007082125) prepared for proposed Target Store at the Shoreline Center; APN: 009-320-45; Planned Development (PD) 1726; Cal -Pox, Inc., owner; Bob Wright (TWM Architects & Planners), applicant; Case Numbers: GPA07-004; ZC07-002; UP07-018; ED07-038. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution (Attachment 2, page 9 of this report) certifying the Target Store Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). BACKGROUND: History/Current Project Status: In 2007, the City of San Rafael received planning applications for the development of a Target Store on the 19± acre project site located northerly of the cul-de-sac at the northerly end of Shoreline Parkway. The project site is Parcel 6 in the Shoreline Business Center and is partially developed with a surface parking lot (occupied and used by Sonnen BMW for vehicle storage). The Target Store project proposes the construction of a 137,424 square -foot general merchandise retail department store, which would serve San Rafael and the surrounding region. The store structure is designed to occupy the northerly portion of the site with 550 surface parking spaces proposed primarily in front of the structure. The project plans include a proposed landscape screening within the parking lot and along the north, east and west property lines. The landscaping along the east property line would provide screening between the project site and the Shoreline Park. The project would involve a grading cut of 4,790 cubic yards and a fill of 50,597 cubic yards. A detailed description of the Target Store project is provided in the attached, September 29, 2009 Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 3, pages 20-21 of this City Council report). Early in this process, on January 23, 2008, the project was reviewed by the Design Review Board (DRB). Ultimately on May 20, 2008, the DRB recommended approval of the project with no significant design changes or recommendations. Also, during the initial stages of the planning process, the City Council granted a Project Selection Process (PSP) determination reserving 115 A.M. and 394 P.M. peak hour trips for the project. The Target Store project is subject to environmental review under California Environmental Quality Act. At the time of initial application filing, it was determined that preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be required to assess the impacts of the project. Most of the review process has been a result of the EIR preparation and review. The environmental review process is described and discussed below. In early 2009, the Target Store representatives contacted the City reporting that this project was being put on -hold due to the current, depressed economy. However, the property owner requested that the City FOR CITY CLERK ONLY File No.: Council Meeting: Disposition: SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2 proceed with completing and certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) so that the FEIR can ultimately be used for the Target Store project if and when it is re -activated or for other future projects proposed for the site. Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR): Notice of Preparation (NOP). As noted above, early in the project processing stage, it was determined that preparation of an EIR was necessary to assess the environmental impacts of the Target Store project. Accordingly, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was published on August 21, 2007, to announce the initiation of the EIR process and to solicit comments regarding the scope of issues to be addressed and alternatives that should be considered in the EIR. The Planning Commission held a scoping hearing on September 11, 2007 and received comments regarding the scope of issues and topic areas to be studied in the EIR. Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). In September 2008, the DEIR was completed (previously distributed to the City Council) and published for a 45 -day public review period. The DEIR disclosed that the project would result in 42 potential impacts that include: • Four (4) significant and unavoidable impacts in the topic areas of Transportation/Traffic, Land Use and Planning and Air Quality. No mitigation measures are available to reduce or eliminate these impacts. Regarding Transportation/Traffic, the project would contribute new traffic at the Kerner Boulevard/Bellam Boulevard intersection, which currently operates below the City's level of service standard that is adopted for this intersection; • Sixteen potentially significant impacts for which mitigation measures were identified in the topic areas of Air Quality, Biological Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise and Transportation/Traffic; and • Twenty-two less -than -significant impacts. Fifteen topic areas of potential environmental concern were determined to result in no impacts. Further, the DEIR studied the following three (3) project alternatives: 1) Alternative 1- No Project/No Build; 2) Alternative 2- Hotel/Restaurant Development; and 3) Alternative 3- Car Dealership Development. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e), the EIR must identify an 'environmentally superior alternative' that would result in lesser or fewer significant environmental impacts than the proposed project. The DEIR concludes that Alternative 1 (No Project/No Build) would be considered the environmentally superior alternative as it would reduce or eliminate all of the potentially significant impacts identified for the project. Alternative 3 (Car Dealership) would fall second to Alternative 1, in that it would reduce some but not all of the potentially significant impacts identified for the project. On October 28, 2008, the San Rafael Planning Commission held a public hearing on the DEIR to receive and provide comments on the document. The City received 15 letters, numerous environmental comments on the DEIR, requiring responses and additional research by the City's environmental consultants. Written and verbal comments identified potential impacts in the areas of Traffic, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Wetlands and Wildlife, Drainage, Noise, Growth Inducing, Light and Glare, Air Quality, Soil, Aesthetics and Urban Decay. The Planning Commission directed that responses be provided to all comments and that a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) be prepared. Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). In accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21091(d)(2)(A) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, the DEIR comments were evaluated and written responses to the comments were prepared and formatted into the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (previously distributed to the City Council). The FEIR is composed of three bound volumes containing the following elements: ➢ The DEIR and Appendices to the DEIR (two volumes); and ➢ An FEIR/Response to Comments (one volume) that contains: 0 A list of persons, organizations and public agencies that commented on the DEIR; SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3 • Copies of all written comments received and verbal comments presented at the Planning Commission hearing on the DEIR; • Written responses to all the comments received. These responses include identifying text revisions in the DEIR. Further, the comments and responses do not result in any new significant impacts that have not been previously identified; • Revisions to the DEIR resulting from comments, including staff -initiated text changes. The text changes do not add significant new information to the DEIR but merely provide clarification or make minor modifications to an adequate EIR; and • Appendices containing technical reports to support the responses to comments. Due to the duplication of a number of the written and verbal comments received on the DEIR, a number of 'Master Responses' were prepared, which provides an opportunity for expanded discussion and information on the specific topic areas of concern. The 'Master Responses' are presented in Section 11.6 of the FEIR/Response to Comments volume. 'Master Responses' have been prepared to focus on the following topic areas and issues: 1. Air Quality- expanded information on potential greenhouse gas emissions. 2. Biological Resources- clarification and confirmation regarding comments about potential wildlife corridors through the site, setbacks/buffers to wetlands and waterways, and potential presence of special -status species. 3. Hazards and Hazardous Materials- clarification and confirmation on the effectiveness of the mitigation measures, groundwater testing, the presence of leachate and the effects of pile driving on the capped and contained landfill. 4. Hydrology and Water Quality- additional information and clarity on the storm water drainage capacity and on-site detention/retention. 5. Transportation and Traffic- clarification and expanded mitigation recommendations (Mitigation Measure T1) for the Main Street and Francisco Boulevard East/1-580 Westbound Off -ramp (Intersection 22). The master response on this topic also addresses the DEIR comment regarding the effects of cumulative traffic without planned, major transportation improvements. 6. Urban Decay- more current information and clarification on the urban decay analysis. Please note that the DEIR text edits and revisions presented in Chapter 12.0 of the FEIR/Response to Comments volume include an updated/revised Table 2-1, which provides a summary of all of the project impacts and recommended mitigation measures. The DEIR comments and response to comments have not resulted in any significant changes to the document. The FEIR/Response to Comments was made available on September 11, 2009. Consistent with the CEQA Guidelines, a Notice of Availability was published and the City has provided each public agency that commented on the DEIR written responses to that agency's comments. Planning Commission Review of Final Environmental Impact Report: On September 29, 2009, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the FEIR. Three (3) members of the public provided comments on the FEIR and two letters were submitted (Marin Audubon Society and Marin Conservation League, see Attachment 6), which specifically raised issues regarding biological resources and wildlife; traffic and urban decay. In response, the EIR technical consultants provided detailed verbal responses to the concerns expressed in the letters and hearing comments. The responses are reflected in Planning Commission Minutes (see Attachment 5, pages 37-40 of this report). Following closure of the public hearing, the Planning Commission had lengthy discussion on the adequacy of the studies and responses contained in the FEIR, and the recommended mitigation measures. Commissioner Sonnet suggested some expanded study of traffic impacts (sensitivity analysis) and aesthetic impacts (additional computer-generated visual simulation). However, following a SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 4 discussion of this suggestion, the Planning Commission concluded that the FEIR is adequate for certification, understanding that when the Target Store project is re -activated or a new project is proposed for this site, the FEIR will need to be reviewed and possibly revised or amended to address changes in circumstances. Nonetheless, the Commission requested a number of revisions to mitigation measures to provide additional clarity and expanded information to ensure effective implementation. The Commission recommended revisions to the following measure, among others: ➢ Mitigation Measure 8104: requiring that interpretive signage posted along Shoreline Park comply with the adopted Shoreline Enhancement Plan (1991). ➢ Mitigation Measure H3: requiring the remediation of contaminated soil in the event it such soil is discovered when conducting an inspection on the oil -water separator that is located on the Sonnen BMW vehicle storage lot. ➢ Mitigation Measure T1: revising the expanded mitigation for monitoring and improvement requirements for the Main Street and Francisco Boulevard East/Westbound 1-580 Off -ramp (referenced as Intersection #22 in DEIR). ➢ Mitigation Measure T3: revising the recommendation to implement signal phasing at the Francisco Boulevard East/Shoreline Parkway intersection so that it is required, subject to the approval and direction of the City Traffic Engineer. The Planning Commission voted 5-1-1(Sonnet dissenting and Colin absent) recommending certification of the FEIR with revisions to a number of the mitigation measures. This action included a directive to staff to prepare an errata statement containing the recommended revisions to the FEIR mitigation measures. This errata document has been prepared and is included as an attachment to the draft City Council resolution (Attachment 2, Exhibit A, page 15 of this report). ANALYSIS: The FEIR has been completed in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA) and the City's Environmental Review Procedures. As presented, certification of the FEIR is recommended in that: The prescribed public review periods and duly -noticed Planning Commission hearings were held for Notice of Preparation (NOP); Notice of Completion (NOC) for the DEIR, and the Notice of Availability for the FEIR. 2. The document has been prepared using the City's independent analysis judgment, and it appropriately analyzes and presents conclusions on impacts, analyzes a reasonable range of alternatives to the project that could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project while avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effect of the project and recommends mitigation measures to substantially lessen or avoid the otherwise significant adverse environmental impacts of the project.. The findings and recommendations in the document are supported by technical studies prepared by professionals experienced in the specific areas of study. 3. The information contained in the FEIR is current, correct and complete for document certification. As a result of comments submitted on the DEIR, the FEIR presents some additional information and recommendations to expand, clarify and support the findings of the specific studies and topic areas, which, as a result, have resulted in minor revisions in the DEIR text and recommended mitigation measures. The extent of changes to the document would not meet the threshold for recirculation of the DEIR, as prescribed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 in that: the information added to the EIR does not deprive the public of meaningful opportunity to comment upon the substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect that the project's proponents have declined to implement. In particular, the new information presented in the FEIR does not disclose: a. a new significant environmental impact resulting from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented; SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 5 b. a substantial increase in the severity of the impacts that were disclosed and analyzed in the DEIR; C. any new feasible project alternatives or mitigation measures considerably different from others previously analyzed that would clearly lessen significant environmental impacts of the project, but which the project's proponents refuse to adopt; or d. that the DEIR is so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. 4. The FEIR presents factual, quantitative and qualitative data and studies, which find and support the conclusion that the project will result in several significant, unavoidable environmental impacts and a number of potentially significant impacts that necessitate mitigation. At the time the City considers action on the project's merits, it will be necessary to make complete and detailed findings mitigation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a). For each significant effect identified in the EIR, the City will be required to make one or more of the following findings: a. that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR; that such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding, and that such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; and/or b. that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the FEIR. As the project would result in several significant, unavoidable impacts, findings of overriding consideration will be required. Such findings will require that the City weigh the benefits of the project with the environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated. 5. At this time, the City is merely certifying the FEIR, recognizing it as an informational document. While the environmental document is typically considered for certification concurrent with the action on the project merits and planning applications, certification of this FEIR, at this time, would not prejudice or bias future review or actions on site development. The CEQA Guidelines recognize that an environmental document is prepared for public disclosure of potential project impacts and that it is used as an informational document to guide decision -makers in considering project merits. Certification of the FEIR, as presented, would not result in a land use entitlement or right of development for the project site. If and when the Target Store project is reactivated or a new project is proposed for the subject property, the FOR document will be reviewed to determine whether the circumstances presented in Public Resources Code section 21166, as amplified by its corresponding CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 to 15163 are present with respect to the project to determine whether a Subsequent EIR, a Supplement to the EIR, or Addendum to the EIR need be prepared or if further environmental review under CEQA is not required. N OT I C EIC O R R E S P O N D E N C E: The City Council public hearing public notice for the October 19, 2009 hearing was published in the Marin Independent Journal and mailed to neighboring property owners, businesses and residents within 1,500 feet and surrounding neighborhood associations. A public notice sign was also posted on the property. A copy of the public hearing notice and the notification list is provided as an attachment (Attachment 7, page 59 of this report). No public correspondence (other than the two attached letters, Attachment 6) was received as of the date this report was completed. OPTIONS: The following options may be considered by the City Council on this matter: Certify the Target Store Final Environmental Impact Report as recommended by the Planning Commission; SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 6 2. Deny certification of the Target Store Final Environmental Impact Report; 3. Direct staff to prepare additional studies for the Environmental Impact Report. ACTIONS REQUIRED: It is recommended that the City Council 1. Open the public hearing and accept public testimony; 2. Close the public hearing; and 3. Adopt a resolution certifying the Target Store Final Environmental Impact Report as recommended by the Planning Commission (Attachment 2, page 9 of this report). ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity/Site Map 2. Draft Resolution Certifying the Target Store Final Environmental Impact Report with attachment: Exhibit A — FEIR Errata 3. Planning Commission Staff Report without attachments, September 29, 2009 4. Planning Commission Resolution (No. 09-12) recommending Certification of the Target Store Final Environmental Impact Report , 5 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, September 29, 2009 6. Letters/Correspondence received following FEIR publication 7. Public Hearing Notice and Notification List NUMBERED PAGES IN REPORT (LOWER RIGHT CORNER) 7 9 15 19 29 33 51 59 Note: The FEIR/Responses to Comments, the DEIR and Technical Appendices were previously distributed to the City Council CC Staff Report_10.19.09[revised].doc o$� ATTACHMENT 1 —r. a f .ii a _- I A pm C3.Y SITE PLAN PACIFIC LAND SERVICES OTARGET fi152 xwimwe vNhWAr ' °1"E m `�x:Pa^ X164° f R�I sw awa wnxmunr ourwuu ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL CERTIFYING FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR) (SCH # 2007082125) FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 137,424 -SQ. FT. TARGET STORE AT 125 SHORELINE PARKWAY (APN: 009-320-45) GPA07-004; ZC07-002; UP07-018; ED07-038 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL RESOLVES as follows: WHEREAS, on August 21, 2006, the City Council granted a Project Selection Process (PSP) determination for a San Rafael Target Store (the project) to be located at 125 Shoreline Parkway (Parcel 6 of Shoreline Center). The PSP determination allowed the project a total of 115 A.M. and 394 P.M. net new peak hour trips. The PSP determination was valid until August 21, 2008; and WHEREAS, on February 21, 2007, the Design Review Board reviewed a conceptual design of the project. The Board recommended that the project address their comments regarding landscaping, proposed division of the property, lack of articulation and creativity in building design, respect for views from the Bay, screening of mechanical equipment, the view for the residents to the north, the amount of hardscape, provision of an outdoor facility for the public to enjoy, outdoor lighting, excessive parking, narrow entryway and bicycles and pedestrians; and WHEREAS, on May 11, 2007, Target applied to the City of San Rafael, Planning Division for planning permits to build an approximately 137,224 sq. ft. retail store; and WHEREAS, on September 11, 2007, the Planning Commission held an appropriately noticed (Notice of Preparation) Public Meeting for Scoping the Environmental Impact Report for the project. The Planning Commission directed staff to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) addressing the following issues: Land Use and Planning, Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Public Services, Utilities and Service Systems, Transportation/Traffic, Urban Decay, Cumulative Impacts, Growth -Inducing Impacts and project alternatives; and WHEREAS, on January 23, 2008, the Design Review Board reviewed the revised plans submitted by Target in response to the Design Review Board's and the Planning Commission's recommendations. Following public input and discussion, the Board recommended further revisions to the project design. On May 20, 2008, the Design Review Board reviewed the further plan revisions and recommended approval of the project design; and WHEREAS, on August 18, 2008, the City Council re -granted the PSP determination initially granted on August 21, 2006, for two additional years. The PSP determination is valid to August 18,2010; and WHEREAS, the San Rafael Target Store DEIR was circulated for a 45 -day public review period beginning September 8, 2008, and ending October 23, 2008 (SCH # 2007082125); and ATTACHMENT 2 2.1 WHEREAS, on October 28, 2008, the Planning Commission held a duly -noticed public hearing to consider the DEIR. The DEIR concluded that the project would result in several significant, unavoidable impacts associated with traffic/transportation, air quality and land use. All other significant impacts identified in the DEIR could be mitigated to less -than -significant levels with implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in the DEIR; and WHEREAS, based on written and verbal comments received from the public on the DEIR and its own review of the DEIR, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a Final Environmental Impact Report and respond to comments received on the DEIR; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21091(d)(2)(A) and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15088 and 15089, the City has responded to all the environmental comments that were submitted on the DEIR during the public review period and a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been completed; and WHEREAS, following a review of the DEIR comments and responses, which include expanded discussion of impacts and mitigation measures, staff determined that there is no substantially new information that would be cause to re -circulate the DEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b); and WHEREAS, on September 11, 2009, a Notice of Availability for the Final Environmental Impact Report/Response to Comments (FEIR) was mailed to interested persons and property owners and occupants within 1,500 feet of the property and written responses to public agency comments were provided to agencies who commented on the DEIR; and WHEREAS, on September 29, 2009, the San Rafael Planning Commission held a duly - noticed public hearing on the FEIR, accepting all oral and written public testimony and the written report of the Community Development Department staff; and WHEREAS, at the September 29, 2009 public hearing, the Planning Commission received two letters and public comment regarding the FEIR study of biological resources, wildlife, traffic and urban decay impacts. The EIR technical consultants provided detailed, verbal responses to the concerns, which are reflected and summarized in September 29, 2009 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes; and WHEREAS, following closure of the public hearing, the Planning Commission had a lengthy discussion on the adequacy of the studies contained in the FEIR and the recommended mitigation measures. As a result of this discussion, the Planning Commission determined that no further studies were necessary to deem the FEIR as adequate. However, the Planning Commission recommended revisions to FEIR Mitigation Measures BIO4, H3, Tl, T2, T3, T4 and WQ8 for the purpose of clarifying and expanding the information and to ensure appropriate implementation of the measures. The revised mitigation measures are presented in the attached Errata (Exhibit A), which is incorporated herein; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted 5-1 (Sonnet dissenting and Colin absent) recommending certification of the FEIR with the incorporation of the revised mitigation measures; and WHEREAS, the custodian of documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based, is the Community Development Department; and ATTACHMENT 2 2.2 WHEREAS, on October 19, 2009, the San Rafael City Council held a duly -noticed public hearing on the FEIR, accepting all oral and written public testimony and the written report of the Community Development Department staff; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of San Rafael hereby certifies the Target Store Final Environmental Impact Report based on the following findings: FINDINGS 1. The FEIR has been completed in compliance with the CEQA Guidelines and the City of San Rafael Environmental Review Procedures following the appropriate format, content, technical analysis of potential impact areas, and assessment of project alternatives. Further, the prescribed public review periods and duly -noticed Planning Commission hearings were held for the initial Notice of Preparation (NOP); the Notice of Completion (NOC) for public review of the DEIR; and the Notice of Availability following publication of the FEIR. 2. The FEIR has been prepared using the City's independent judgment and analysis, and the FEIR: a. appropriately analyzes and presents conclusions on impacts; b. analyzes a reasonable range of alternatives to the project that could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project while avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effect of the project; and c. recommends mitigation measures to substantially lessen or avoid the otherwise significant adverse environmental impacts of the project. The findings and recommendations in the document are supported by technical studies prepared by professionals experienced in the specific areas of study. 3. The information contained in the FEIR is current, correct and complete for document certification. As a result of comments submitted on the DEIR, the FEIR presents some additional information and recommendations to expand, clarify and support the findings of the specific studies and topic areas, which, as a result, was cause for minor revisions in the DEIR text and recommended mitigation measures. The extent of changes to the document would not meet the threshold for re -circulation of the DEIR, as prescribed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 in that the new information added to the EIR does not deprive the public of meaningful opportunity to comment upon the substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect that the project's proponents have declined to implement. In particular, the new information presented in the FEIR does not disclose: a. a new significant environmental impact resulting from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented; b. a substantial increase in the severity of the impacts that were disclosed and analyzed in the DEIR; or c. any new feasible project alternatives or mitigation measures considerably different from others previously analyzed that would clearly lessen significant environmental impacts of the project, but which the project's proponents refuse to adopt. Nor is the DEIR so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. ATTACHMENT 2 2.3 4. The FEIR presents factual, quantitative and qualitative data and studies, which find and support the conclusion that the project will result in several significant, unavoidable environmental impacts and a number of potentially significant impacts that necessitate mitigation. At the time the City considers action on the project's merits, it will be necessary to make complete and detailed findings pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a). For each significant effect identified the FIR, the City will be required to make one or more of the following findings: a. that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR; that such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding, and that such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; b. that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the FEIR; and.or c. As the project would result in several significant, unavoidable impacts, findings of overriding consideration will be required. Such findings will require that the City weigh the benefits of the project with the environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated. 5. At this time, the City is merely certifying the FEIR, recognizing it as an informational document for future project assessment. While the environmental document is often considered for certification concurrent with the action on the project merits and planning applications, certification of this FEIR, at this time, would not prejudice or bias future review or actions on site development. The CEQA Guidelines recognize that an environmental document is prepared for public disclosure of potential project impacts and that it is used as an informational document to guide decision -makers in considering project merits. Certification of the FEIR, as presented, would not result in a land use entitlement or right of development for the project site. If and when the Target Store project is reactivated or a new project is proposed for the subject property, the FEIR document will be reviewed to determine whether the circumstances presented in Public Resources Code section 21166, as amplified by its corresponding CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 to 15163 are present with respect to the project to determine whether a Subsequent EIR, a Supplement to the EIR, or Addendum to the EIR need be prepared or if further environmental review under CEQA is not required. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San Rafael certifies the Target Store Final Environmental Impact Report incorporating the revisions presented in the attached Errata (Exhibit A). I, ESTHER C. BEIRNE, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the forgoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held Monday, the 19a` of October, 2009, by the following vote, to wit: ATTACHMENT 2 2.4 AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ESTHER C. BEIRNE, City EXHIBIT A: Errata CC Resolution_ 10.19.09[mvised].doo ATTACHMENT 2 2.5 EXHIBIT A SAN RAFAL TARGET FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ERRATA AND SUPPLEMENT October 2009 This exhibit serves as an errata and supplement to the San Rafael Target Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR). The minor revisions to the following mitigation measures (in underline/strikeout format) have been incorporated and appear in the Final FIR in order to provide expanded clarity and information to ensure effective implementation: 1. Revise Mitigation Measure BI04 Interpretive signageeing shall be installed at the edge of the development adjacent to the coastal salt marsh to educate visitors and workers about the habitat value of the marsh. This signage shall be prepared in consultation with a wildlife biologist and shall be consistent with the design for Interpretive Display Kiosks included in the Shoreline Enhancement Plan. (1991) and the San Rafael Shoreline Park Master Plan (1989). 2. Revise Mitigation Measure H3 An oil -water separator is located on the BMW storage lot in the southwest corner of the site. The structural integrity of the feature was not evaluated relative to the potential for a subsurface release. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the project sponsor shall have the subsurface soils surrounding the oil -water separator sampled and tested for potential hazardous materials in accordance with local requirements. DPsi-i-'ts of 41.0 .......„ling would indi...te the level o omediatieft efforts th 4 may be required If contaminated soils are found, they shall be remediated pursuant to the recommendations of a qualified professional and subject to approval of MCEHS, if required. Remediation may include, but is not limited to, removing and properly disposing of contaminated soils. 3. Revise Mitigation Measure Tl Intersection #22, Main Street and Francisco Boulevard East/I-580 Westbound Off -Ramp. Traffic analysis concludes that, with the contribution of project traffic during the AM peak hour, one of eight warrants for signalization (the Peak Hour warrant) per California MUTCD would be met. Hence, signalization is not required to approve the proposed project. However, the following mitigation measures are recommended to ensure that the intersection operates at an acceptable level of service and to address the potential, need for long-term signalization: a. Short-term improvements. The project sponsor shall obtain Caltrans approval and implement the installation of two lanes at the westbound off -ramp (existing lane plus a separate left turn lane). Caltrans approval and lane installation shall occur prior to occupancy of the Target Store. b. Posting of bond or securities for monitoring and signalization. Prior to the occupancy of the proposed project, T^_ , the developer shall be required to post a bond or similar security, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, to cover the cost of signalizing this intersection and signalization of the I-580 Eastbound Off -Ramp at Main Street (identified as study Intersection #23 in the Draft EIR). The amount for the bond or security shall be based on a projected cost for the signalization of the two off -ramp intersections and needed, associated improvements (estimated at $500,000 in 2009 dollars). An additional amount of $10,000 shall be posted for post -occupancy monitoring and traffic analysis. A-1 EXHIBIT A SAN RAFAL TARGET FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ERRATA AND SUPPLEMENT October 2009 c. Post -occupancy traffic study. Six months following occupancy and full operation of the project, the intersection shall be analyzed and modeled to determine the status of signal warrants with developed project traffic. In the event all required warrants are met to install the off -ramp signals and associated improvements, Caltrans approval shall be obtained and the securities posted by the project sponsor shall be used to fund the installation of improvements. d. Fair share contribution for project impact. Should the post -occupancy traffic study find that the required warrants are not met to install the off -ramp signals and the needed, associated improvements; the City shall return/refund the bonds and securities but shall retain the projected fair share contribution for the project (two percent of the projected volume) and the deposit for traffic monitoring. e. Post occupancy monitoring. The City shall continue monitoring the intersection in consultation with Caltrans for a period of five years following project occupancy. If after five years of monitoring the required warrants are not met to initiate signalization, the fair share contribution shall be returned to the project sponsor. Traffic studies will be required for subsequent development projects impacting this intersection. The first development project that triggers all required warrants for signalization shall be required to obtain Caltrans approval and install the improvements recommended in this measure. 4. Revise Mitigation Measure T2 The project's impacts and contribution of traffic at this intersection will be mitigated through the implementation of the General Plan 2020 planned transportation improvements (signalized and intersection improvements). The project is -shall be subject to City -adopted traffic mitigation fees, which will fund these improvements and mitigate the project's impacts at this intersection. 5. Revise Mitigation Measure T3 It is As directed and determined by the City Traffic Engineer, intersection phasing shall be adjusted so that: a) maximum greens on the northbound -through and southbound -through movements are decreased; and b) the maximum greens on the eastbound - through and westbound -through movements are increased. The project sponsor shall pay the full cost of implementing this measure. 6. Delete Mitigation Measure T4 This mitigation measure was erroneously included in Table 2-1 (Summary of Impacts and Mitigation) of the Final EIR. The requirements of Mitigation Measure T4 are covered by Mitigation Measure Tl and, therefore, the measure is deleted from Table 2-1. 7. Revise Mitigation Measure WQ8 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project sponsor shall prepare and submit a detailed stormwater drainage plan that -would shall include directing runoff, to the extent feasible, to the City -owned drainage pond north of the site and stormwater retention and/or metering measures (e.g., on-site detention basin or CDS system) that would reduce the amount of storm water flow lata EXHIBIT A SAN RAFAL TARGET FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ERRATA AND SUPPLEMENT October 2009 to the 18 -inch storm drain line on Shoreline Parkway. Project stormwater flow to the storm drain line shall be no more than 15 cfs during storm events up to and including the 100 -year event. The stormwater drainage plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. A-3 Meeting Date: September 29, 2099 Cm OF Agenda Item: 3 YYY••••••••✓✓✓ Case Numbers: GPA07-004; ZC07-002; Community Development Department— Planning Division UP07-018; ED07-038; P. O. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 Project Planner: Sarjit S Dhaliwal (415) 485-3397 PHONE: (415) 485-3085/FAX: (415) 485-3184 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION SUBJECT: Target - 125 Shoreline Parkway - Review of Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH # 2007082125) prepared for proposed Target Store at the Shoreline Center; APN: 009-320-45; Planned Development (PD) 1726; Cal -Pox, Inc., owner; Bob Wright (TWM Architects & Planners), applicant; Case Numbers: ED07-038; GPA07-004; UP07-018: ZC07-002. The City of San Rafael is the lead agency for overseeing environmental review for a new Target Store proposed for a 19+ acre site at 125 Shoreline Parkway, within the Shoreline Center (the project). The project proposes the construction of a 137,424 -square -foot general merchandise, retail store along with associated parking for 550 vehicles and landscaping screening within the parking lot and along the north, east and west property lines. Planning applications for the project include a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change (amendment to PD 1726 District), a Use Permit and an Environmental Design Review Permit. In 2008, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 at seq.) to assess the environmental impacts of the Target Store project. The issues studied and addressed in the DEIR include: Land Use and Planning; Aesthetics; Air Quality; Biological Resources; Geology and Soils; Hazards and Hazardous Materials; Hydrology and Water Quality; Noise; Public Services, Utilities and Service Systems; Transportation/Traffic; Urban Decay; Cumulative Impacts and Growth -Inducing Impacts. The DEIR concluded that the project would result in several significant, unavoidable impacts associated with traffic/transportation, air quality and land use. All other potentially significant impacts that were identified can be mitigated to less -than -significant levels with the implementation of specific measures. The DEIR also studied three alternatives to the project that would meet most of the project's basic objections and would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project. In September 2008, the DEIR was published for public review. A 45 -day public review period was observed and the San Rafael Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 28, 2008 to receive comments on the document and consider the DEIR. The City received numerous environmental comments on the DEIR, requiring responses and additional research by the City's environmental consultants. In early 2009, Target requested that this project be put on hold due to the current depressed economy. However, the property owner requested that the City proceed with completing and certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) so that the FEIR can ultimately be used for the Target Store project if and when it is re -activated or for other future projects proposed for the site. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21091(d)(2)(A) and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15088 and 15089, the City has responded to all environmental comments submitted on the DEIR during the public comment period and a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been completed. Accordingly, a ten-day Notice of ATTACHMENT 3 3.1 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case Nos.: GPA07-004; ZC07-002; UP07-018; ED07-038 Page 2 Availability (NOA) has been observed and the City has provided each public agency that commented on the DEIR written responses to that agency's comments. The role of the Planning Commission is to review the FEIR and make a recommendation to the City Council as to whether the document should be certified, revised or rejected. RECOMIV1ENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Review and discuss Final Environmental Impact Report/ Response to Comments (FEIR) received on the DEIR. 2. Adopt Resolution recommending to City Council certification of FEIR. PROPERTY FACTS Address/Location: 1125 Shoreline Parkway I Parcel Number(s): 009-320-45 Property Size: 1 19.42 acres I Neighborhood: I Shoreline Center Site Characteristics General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Existing Land -Use Project Site Light Industrial/Office Planned Development Vacant and Auto (PD) 1726 storage within a 2 -acre fenced area North Conservation PD -Wetland Overlay Vacant open space (PD -WO) East Park Parks/Open Space- Shoreline Park Band Wetland Overlay and submerged (P/OS-WO) wetlands South Light Industrial/Office, and PD 1726 & Parks/Open Vacant, and open Open Space Space -Wetland space Overlay (P/OS-WO) West Light Industrial/Office, and PD 1726 & Parks/Open Hardware retail (Home Conservation Space -Wetland Depot) and open space Overlay (P/OS-WO) Site Description/Setting: The project site is located northerly of the cul-de-sac at the northerly end of Shoreline Parkway. The property is approximately 19+ acres, with level to very gently rolling topographical conditions. The site is located on a former landfill (known as San Quentin Landfill), which was closed and capped in the late 1980's. In 1993, the City Council approved Shoreline Center Business Park Master Plan for the former landfill property. As part of this project approval, the City Council adopted a Planned Development (PD 1651) District reclassifying the Business Park property from Light Industrial/Office (LI/O) District. The property is identified as Parcel 6 in the Master Plan. The PD 1651 District allowed light industrial uses; research and development; professional, administrative and general offices; retail sales of home improvement goods and supplies (limited to parcels 1 through 4); other specialty retail uses (limited to parcels 1 through 4); motor vehicle sales and service; warehousing, storage and distribution; ancillary EXHIBIT 3 3.2 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case Nos.: GPA07-004; ZC07-002; UP07-018; ED07-038 Page 3 employee serving restaurants and service businesses; and contractor storage yards. Since its initial adoption in 1993, the PD 1651 District has been amended several times (current zoning is PD 1726) to address changes in land use and individual project development. The project site is currently undeveloped except for an approximately 2 -acre portion that contains a vehicle storage yard for Sonnen BMW, located northeast of the intersection of Shoreline Parkway and Kerner Blvd. The majority of the land surrounding the project site is undeveloped with the exception of commercial uses within the Shoreline Center occurring to the southwest (Home Depot and auto dealers). An approximately 83 -acre Canalways salt marsh is located immediately north and northwest of the project site. A stormwater retention pond is located south of the project site. To the immediate west is the Home Depot Store, and to the immediate east is the Jean and John Starkweather Shoreline Park with the San Rafael Bay beyond. BACKGROUND On August 21, 2006, the City Council granted a Project Selection Process (PSP) determination for the Target Store project. The PSP determination reserved a total of 115 A.M. and 394 P.M. net new peak hour trips for the project. The initial PSP determination was valid until August 21, 2008, and was re - granted by the City Council on August 18, 2008, for two additional years. In 2007, the City of San Rafael received planning applications for the development of a Target Store on the 19+ acre project site. Early in this process, the project was reviewed by the Design Review Board (DRB) on January 23, 2008. The DRB commented that the project did not have appropriate relationship to the Bay, did not provide adequate massing and an appropriate variety of natural materials and provided excessive parking. The DRB recommended the project should be significantly redesigned. On May 20, 2008, the DRB reviewed a revised project design and recommended approval subject to changing the color on the rear of the building. No other significant design recommendations were made by the DRB. PRQJECTDESCRIF? The Target Store EIR has been prepared to assess environmental issues for a project that would involve construction of a 137,424 square -foot general merchandise retail department store, which would serve San Rafael and the surrounding region. The store structure is designed to occupy the northerly portion of the site with 550 surface parking spaces proposed primarily in front of the structure. The project plans include a proposed landscape screening within the parking lot and along the north, east and west property lines. The landscaping along the east property line would provide screening between the project site and the Shoreline Park. The project would involve a grading cut of 4,790 cubic yards and a fill of 50,597 cubic yards. As noted above, the Target Store project for which the EIR process was initiated has been placed on hold by the applicants. However, the property owner requested that the City proceed with completing and certifying the FEIR so that the document can be used for the Target Store project if and when it is re- activated or for other future projects on the project site. A complete description of the Target Store project is provided in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) Chapter 3.0. ANALYSIS = ENVommENTAL REVIEW Notice of Preparation (NOP) Consistent with the CEQA Guidelines, in August 2007, the City prepared and published a Notice of Preparation (NOP). Typically, an Initial Study is prepared to determine if an EIR is required for a project and to specifically scope issues that are very focused. However, given that potential traffic impacts had already been identified, the City determined that preparation of an EIR would be required and that the EXHIBIT 3 3.3 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case Nos.: GPA07-004; ZC07-002; UP07-018; ED07-038 Page 4 scope of issues to be studied would be determined through the public NOP process. The NOP process included a 30 -day public review and a Planning Commission public hearing was held on September 11, 2007. As a result of this process, it was determined that the EIR would study and analyze the following topic areas: • Land Use and Planning; • Aesthetics; • Air Quality; • Biological Resources; • Geology and Soils; • Hazards and Hazardous Materials; • Hydrology and Water Quality; • Noise; • Public Services, Utilities and Service Systems; • Transportation/Traffic; and • Urban Decay. The EIR was also to address cumulative impacts, growth inducing impacts as required by CEQA. As also required by CEQA, the EIR was to include a range of reasonable alternatives to a project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. The identified objectives of the project are to: • Construct a locally and regionally serving Target Store that would serve San Rafael and nearby communities; • Develop a project (Target Store) that meets the land use objectives of the San Rafael General Plan 2020 (General Plan 2020), the Shoreline Center Master Plan and Planned Development (PD) 1726 District; • Improve the tax base of the City of San Rafael (City) by developing a viable retail store that generates tax revenue for the City; • Promote economic growth by creating new jobs within the City; and • Provide attractive development while preserving and protecting public views of San Rafael Bay and ensuring compatibility with the adjacent Jean and John Starkweather Shoreline Park. As part of the NOP process, the scope of project alternatives was discussed. Based upon this objective, the EIR was to assess two potential alternatives to the proposed project in addition to a no -project alternative. Notice of Completion (NOC) and Publication of DEIR A DEIR was completed in mid -2008. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15372, on September 8, 2008, a Notice of Completion (NOC) was published to announce the completion of the DEIR and the start of a 45 -day review period for review and comments. The NOC was mailed to regulatory agencies and utilities, neighborhood associations, special interest groups and to all property owners and occupants within 1,000 feet of the subject property. In addition, the NOC was published in the Marin Independent Journal on September 10, 2008 and posted on the property on October 10, 2008. The DEIR concluded that the project would result in several impacts as follows: • Potentially significant, unavoidable impacts: The project would result in four (4) potentially significant and unavoidable impacts in the areas of traffic, air quality and land use, for which there is no mitigation to reduce impact levels to less -than -significant. EXHIBIT 3 3.4 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case Nos.: GPA07-004; ZC07-002; UP07-018; ED07-038 Page 5 Potentially significant impacts: The project would result in 15 potentially significant impacts in the areas of hazards and hazardous materials, drainage, soils, light and glare, for which mitigation measures have been identified to reduce impacts to a less -than -significant level. Less than significant impacts: The project would result in 17 impacts in the areas of wetlands and wildlife, noise, aesthetics, qualify of life and urban decay which are insignificant and do not require mitigation. Further, the DEIR studied the following three (3) project alternatives: 1) Alternative 1- No Project/No Build; 2) Alternative 2- Hotel/Restaurant Development; and 3) Alternative 3- Car Dealership Development. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e), the EIR must identify an 'environmentally superior alternative' that would result in lesser or fewer significant environmental impacts than the proposed project. The DEIR concludes that Alternative 1 (No Project/No Build) would be considered the environmentally superior alternative as it would reduce or eliminate all of the potentially significant impacts identified for the project. Alternative 3 (Car Dealership) would fall second to Alternative 1, in that it would reduce some but not all of the potentially significant impacts identified for the project. Comments Received on the DEIR During the 45 -day public review period on the DEIR, a total of 15 letters, memoranda and correspondence were received by the City. In addition, verbal and written comments were accepted at the Planning Commission public hearing on October 28, 2008. Following the close of the NOC review period, City staff and the EIR consultant reviewed the comments received and responded to the comments in the Final EIR. A summary of the focused topic areas and key comments submitted on the DEIR is provided as follows: Traffic: • The project would result in generation of additional traffic in an area of the City where existing intersections already have inadequate level of service (LOS) conditions. • The DEIR did not address northbound traffic on Highway 101, which is already congested. • Comment(s) stated that the EIR should model cumulative traffic factoring out two, planned transportation improvements identified in the General Plan 2020 (Shoreline Parkway undercrossing and Francisco Boulevard East widening) that are projected to be very costly. • The General Plan 2020 EIR traffic model assessed 110,000 sq. ft. of large retail use for this site, but the project proposes 137,000 plus sq. ft. of general merchandise or retail department store plus a garden center (a difference of 27,000 sq. ft.). Comment(s) questioned whether there is a substantial difference between project traffic, air quality and noise impacts as compared to what was analyzed in the San Rafael General Plan 2020. • Comment(s) requested additional analysis on the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates for this project is desired and a response is requested as to why it is appropriate to look at the rate for this project. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: • The site, being a former landfill would result in issues of hazards and hazardous materials such as potential gas emissions. A status report on methane and leachate is critical. • Comment(s) inquired as to what are the effects of pile foundation and building on the methane and leachate production. Wetlands and Wildlife: • The project would have an adverse impact on the wetlands and wildlife corridors surrounding the site. Comment(s) asserted the DEIR does not adequately address wildlife corridors in the area and the project's setbacks from neighboring wetlands. EXHIBIT 3 3.5 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case Nos.: GPA07-004; ZC07-002; UP07-018; ED07-038 Page 6 Drainage: • Comment(s) asserted that the DEIR does not adequately assess the retention and treatment of storm water. An expanded discussion on how stormwater would be retained on, or metered from the site (especially during a 100 year event) is needed. Noise: • Comment(s) stated that noise from delivery trucks must be addressed. • Comment(s) asserted that the public Shoreline Park path that is east of the project parking lot needs to be treated and assessed as a sensitive noise receptor. Growth Inducing: • Comment(s) requested additional discussion as to why the project is not growth inducing. According to the comment(s), while this project may not singularly be growth inducing, cumulative development will create additional pressure on the City to provide workforce housing. Light and Glare: • Comment(s) requested additional support for the conclusion that light and glare generated by the project will not affect nighttime views in the area. Air Quality: • Comment(s) requested additional air quality data, particularly with respect to fine particulate matters. Comment(s) stated the definition of particulate matter is incomplete. All the air quality analysis is based on monitoring stations downtown. Is there a scientific basis for expecting that the data from the downtown can be applied appropriately to the analysis at this site? Soil: • The DEIR discusses the soil and landfill conditions and predicts as much as 6 to 9 feet of settlement. The DEIR recommends a hinge -slab building foundation design to accommodate up to 9 -foot of settlement in the parking lot elevation. Comment(s) asked with this potential condition based on settlement estimates, how would ADA compliance be achieved between the store and the parking lot? Aesthetics: • Comment(s) asserted the photographs and simulations provided in the DEIR were ineffective and do not take into account the real scale of the development. Urban Decay: • Comment(s) stated the new Target Store would have adverse impact on existing businesses in the City and result in urban decay. The economic analysis that was prepared extrapolates regional figures but no local survey of small businesses was conducted. • Comment(s) stated there should be a thorough community impact analysis on the effect on other businesses, fiscal benefits to the County and City and employment benefits, if any. FEIR/Response to Comments In accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21091(d)(2)(A) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(, the DEIR comments have been evaluated and written responses to the comments have been prepared and formatted into the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). The FEIR/Response to Comments is composed of the following elements: • The DEIR and Appendices to the DEIR; • A list of persons, organizations and public agencies that commented on the DEIR; EXHIBIT 3 3.6 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case Nos.: GPA07-004; ZC07-002; UP07-018; ED07-038 Page 7 • Copies of all written comments received and verbal comments presented at the Planning Commission hearing on the DEIR; • Written responses to all the comments received. These responses include identifying text revisions in the DEIR. Further, the comments and responses do not result in any new significant impacts that have not been previously identified; • Revisions to the DEIR resulting from comments, including staff -initiated text changes. The text changes do not add significant new information to the DEIR but merely provide clarification or make minor modifications to an adequate EIR; and • Appendices containing technical reports to support the responses to comments. Due to the duplicity of some of the comments received, a number of 'Master Responses' were prepared, which provide an opportunity for expanded discussion and information. The 'Master Responses' are presented in Section 11.6 of the FEIR/Response to Comments volume. 'Master Responses' have been prepared to focus on the following topic areas and issues: 1. Air Quality- specifically expanded and expanded information on potential greenhouse gas emissions; 2. Biological Resources- clarification and confirmation regarding comments about potential wildlife corridors through the site, setbacks/buffers to wetlands and waterways, and potential presence of special -status species. 3. Hazards and Hazardous Materials- clarification and confirmation on the effectiveness of the mitigation measures, groundwater testing, the presence of leachate and the effects of pile driving on the capped and contained landfill. 4. Hydrology and Water Quality- additional information and clarity on the storm water drainage capacity and on-site detention/retention. 5. Transportation and Traffic- clarification and expanded mitigation recommendations (Mitigation Measure T1) for the Main Street and Francisco Boulevard East/1-580 Westbound Off -ramp (Intersection 22). The master response on this topic also addresses the DEIR comment regarding the effects of cumulative traffic without planned, major transportation improvements. 6. Urban Decay- more current information and clarification on the urban decay analysis. Please note that the DEIR text edits and revisions presented in Chapter 12.0 of the FEIR/Response to Comments include an updated/revised Table 2-1, which provides a summary of all of the project impacts and recommended mitigation measures. The DEIR comments and response to comments have not resulted in any significant changes to the document. The FEIR/Response to Comments was made available on September 11, 2009. Consistent with the CEQA Guidelines, a Notice of Availability was published (Exhibit 3). The FEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the City's Environmental Review Procedures. As presented, certification of the FEIR is recommended in that: 1. The prescribed public review periods and duly -noticed Planning Commission hearings were held for Notice of Preparation (NOP); Notice of Completion (NOC) for the DEIR, and the Notice of Availability for the FEIR. EXHIBIT 3 3.7 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case Nos.: GPA07-004; ZC07-002; UP07-018; ED07-038 Page 8 2. The document has been prepared using the City's independent analysis judgment, and it appropriately analyzes and presents conclusions on impacts, analyzes a reasonable range of alternatives to the project that could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project while avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effect of the project and recommends mitigation measures to substantially lessen or avoid the otherwise significant adverse environmental impacts of the project.. The findings and recommendations in the document are supported by technical studies prepared by professionals experienced in the specific areas of study. 3. The information contained in the FEIR is current, correct and complete for document certification. As a result of comments submitted on the DEIR, the FEIR presents some additional information and recommendations to expand, clarify and support the findings of the specific studies and topic areas, which, as a result, have resulted in minor revisions in the DEIR text and recommended mitigation measures. The extent of changes to the document would not meet the threshold for recirculation of the DEIR, as prescribed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 in that: the information added to the EIR does not deprive the public of meaningful opportunity to comment upon the substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect that the project's proponents have declined to implement. In particular, the new information presented in the FEIR does not disclose: a. a new significant environmental impact resulting from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented; b. a substantial increase in the severity of the impacts that were disclosed and analyzed in the DEIR; C. any new feasible project alternatives or mitigation measures considerably different from others previously analyzed that would clearly lessen significant environmental impacts of the project, but which the project's proponents refuse to adopt; or d. that the DEIR is so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. 4. The FEIR presents factual, quantitative and qualitative data and studies, which find and support the conclusion that the Target Store project will result in several significant, unavoidable environmental impacts and a number of potentially significant impacts that necessitate mitigation. At the time the City considers action on the project's merits, it will be necessary to make complete and detailed findings mitigation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a). For each significant effect identified in the EIR, the City will be required to make one or more of the following findings: a. that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR; that such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding, and that such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; and/or b. that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the FEIR. As the project would result in several significant, unavoidable impacts, findings of overriding consideration will be required. Such findings will require that the City weigh the benefits of the project with the environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated. 5. At this time, the City is merely certifying the FEIR, recognizing it as an informational document. While the environmental document is typically considered for certification concurrent with the action on the project merits and planning applications, certification of this FEIR, at this time, EXHIBIT 3 3.8 REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSION - Case Nos.: GPA07-004; ZC07-002; UP07-018; ED07-038 Page 9 would not prejudice or bias future review or actions on site development. The CEQA Guidelines recognize that an environmental document is prepared for public disclosure of potential project impacts and that it is used as an informational document to guide decision -makers in considering project merits. Certification of the FEIR, as presented, would not result in a land use entitlement or right of development for the project site. If and when the Target Store project is reactivated or a new project is proposed for the subject property, the FEIR document will be reviewed to determine whether the circumstances presented in Public Resources Code section 21166, as amplified by its corresponding CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 to 15163 are present with respect to the project to determine whether a Subsequent EIR, a Supplement to the EIR, or Addendum to the EIR need be prepared or if further environmental review under CEQA is not required. It is recommended that the Planning Commission review and discuss the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) Response to Comments received on the DEIR and adopt a Resolution recommending to the City Council certification of the FEIR. 1. Recommend that the City Council certify the FEIR; 2. Require revisions to responses to the comments in the FEIR; or 3. Direct staff to prepare a revised DEIR and re -circulate for public review. EXHIBIT 3 3.9 RESOLUTION NO. 09-012 RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR) (SCH # 2007082125) FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 137,424 -SQ. FT, TARGET STORE AT 125 SHORELINE PARKWAY (APN: 009-320-45) GPA07-004; ZC07-002; UP07-018; ED07-038 WHEREAS, on August 21, 2006, the City Council granted a Project Selection Process (PSP) determination for a San Rafael Target Store (the project) to be located at 125 Shoreline Parkway (parcel 6 of Shoreline Center). The PSP determination allowed the project a total of 115 A.M. and 394 P.M. net new peak hour trips. The PSP determination was valid until August 21, 2008; and WHEREAS, on February 21, 2007, the Design Review Board reviewed a conceptual design of the project. The Board recommended that the project address their comments regarding landscaping, proposed division of the property, lack of articulation and creativity in building design, respect for views from the Bay, screening of mechanical equipment, the view for the residents to the north, the amount of hardscape, provision of an outdoor facility for the public to enjoy, outdoor lighting, excessive parking, narrow entryway and bicycles and pedestrians; and WHEREAS, on May 11, 2007, Target applied to the City of San Rafael, Planning Division for planning permits to build an approximately 137,224 sq. ft. retail store; and WHEREAS, on September 11, 2007, the Planning Commission held an appropriately noticed (Notice of Preparation) Public Meeting for Scoping the Environmental Impact Report for the project. The Planning Commission directed staff to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) addressing the following issues: Land Use and Planning, Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Public Services, Utilities and Service Systems, Transportation/Traffic, Urban Decay, Cumulative Impacts, Growth -Inducing Impacts and project alternatives; and WHEREAS, on January 23, 2008, the Design Review Board reviewed the revised plans submitted by Target in response to the Design Review Board's and the Planning Commission's recommendations. After public input and discussion, the Board recommended further revisions to the project design. On May 20, 2008, the Design Review Board reviewed the further plan revisions. After public input and discussion, the Board recommended approval of the project design; and WHEREAS, on August 18, 2008, the City Council re -granted the PSP determination originally granted on August 21, 2006, for two additional years; and WHEREAS, the San Rafael Target Store DEIR was circulated for a 45 -day public review period beginning September 8, 2008, and ending October 23, 2008 (SCH # 2007082125); and WHEREAS, on October 28, 2008, the Planning Commission held a duly -noticed public hearing to consider the DEIR. The DEIR concluded that the project would result in several significant, unavoidable impacts associated with traffic/transportation, air quality and land use. All other significant impacts identified in the DEIR could be mitigated to less -than -significant levels with implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in the DEIR; and ATTACHMENT 4 4-1 WHEREAS, based on written and verbal comments received from the public on the DEIR and its own review of the DEIR, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a Final Environmental Impact Report and respond to comments received on the DEIR; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21091(d)(2)(A) and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15088 and 15089, the City has responded to all the environmental comments that were submitted on the DEIR during the public review period and a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been completed; and WHEREAS, following a review of the DEIR comments and responses, which include expanded discussion of impacts and mitigation measures, staff determined that there is no substantially new information that would be cause to re -circulate the DEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b); and WHEREAS, on September 11, 2009, a Notice of Availability for the Final Environmental Impact Report/Response to Comments (FEIR) was mailed to interested persons and property owners and occupants within 1,500 feet of the property and written responses to public agency comments were provided to agencies who commented on the DEIR; and WHEREAS, on September 29, 2009, the San Rafael Planning Commission held a duly -noticed public hearing on the FEIR, accepting all oral and written public testimony and the written report of the Community Development Department staff; and WHEREAS, as a result of the Planning Commission discussion, the Mitigation Measures identified in the FEIR were amended to clarify the Mitigation Measures which are presented in an Errata exhibit which is on file with the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council certify the FEIR based on the following findings: The FEIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and with the City of San Rafael Environmental Review Procedures following the appropriate format, content, technical analysis of potential impact areas, and project alternatives. Further, the prescribed public review periods and duly -noticed Planning Commission hearings were held for initial Notice of Preparation (NOP); Notice of Completion (NOC) for the DEIR, and the Notice of Availability for the FEIR. 2. The FEIR has been prepared using the City's independent judgment and analysis, and it appropriately analyzes and presents conclusions on impacts, analyzes a reasonable range of alternatives to the project that could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project while avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effect of the project and recommends mitigation measures to substantially lessen or avoid the otherwise significant adverse environmental impacts of the project. The findings and recommendations in the document are supported by technical studies prepared by professionals experienced in the specific areas of study. 3. The information contained in the FEIR is current, correct and complete for document certification. As a result of comments submitted on the DEIR, the FEIR presents some additional information and recommendations to expand, clarify and support the findings of the specific studies and topic areas, which, as a result, was cause for minor revisions in the DEIR text and recommended mitigation measures. The extent of changes to the document would not meet the threshold for re -circulation of the DEIR, as prescribed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 in that the new information added to the FIR does not deprive the public of meaningful opportunity to comment upon the substantial ATTACHMENT 4 4-2 adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect that the project's proponents have declined to implement. In particular, the new information presented in the FOR does not disclose: a. a new significant environmental impact resulting from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented; b. a substantial increase in the severity of the impacts that were disclosed and analyzed in the DEIR; or c. any new feasible project alternatives or mitigation measures considerably different from others previously analyzed that would clearly lessen significant environmental impacts of the project, but which the project's proponents refuse to adopt. Nor is the DEIR so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. 4. The FOR presents factual, quantitative and qualitative data and studies, which find and support the conclusion that the Target Store project will result in several significant, unavoidable environmental impacts and a number of potentially significant impacts that necessitate mitigation. At the time the City considers action on the project's merits, it will be necessary to make complete and detailed findings pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a). For each significant effect identified the FIR, the City will be required to make one or more of the following findings: a. that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR; that such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding, and that such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; b. that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the FEIR; and.or c. As the project would result in several significant, unavoidable impacts, findings of overriding consideration will be required. Such findings will require that the City weigh the benefits of the project with the environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated. 5. At this time, the City is merely certifying the FEIR, recognizing it as an informational document for future project assessment. While the environmental document is often considered for certification concurrent with the action on the project merits and planning applications, certification of this FEIR, at this time, would not prejudice or bias future review or actions on site development. The CEQA Guidelines recognize that an environmental document is prepared for public disclosure of potential project impacts and that it is used as an informational document to guide decision -makers in considering project merits. Certification of the FEIR, as presented, would not result in a land use entitlement or right of development for the project site. If and when the Target Store project is reactivated or a new project is proposed for the subject property, the FEIR document will be reviewed to determine whether the circumstances presented in Public Resources Code section 21166, as amplified by its corresponding CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 to 15163 are present with respect to the project to determine whether a Subsequent FIR, a Supplement to the FIR, or Addendum to the EIR need be prepared or if further environmental review under CEQA is not required. The foregoing Resolution was adopted at the regular meeting of the City of San Rafael Planning Commission held on the 29°i day of September 2009. Moved by Commissioner _Lan¢ and seconded by Commissioner Paul as follows: ATTACHMENT 4 4-3 AYES: Commissioners: Kircbmann, Lang, Paul, Pick, Wise NOES: Commissioners: Sonnet ABSTAIN: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: Colin ATTEST: Robert M. Brown, Secretary SAN RAFAEL PLANNING COMMISSION BY: Charles Pick, Chair ATTACHMENT 4 4-4 San Rafael Planning Commission Minutes September 29, 2009 — DRAFT Shoreline Parkway — Review of Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) prepared for the proposed Target Store at the Shoreline Business Center, Planned Development (DP) 1726; Cal -Pox, Inc., property owner; Bob Wright (TWM Architects & Planners), applicant; APN: 009-320-45; Case Nos.: GP07-004; ZC07-002; ED07-038; UP07-018. Project Planner: Sarjit Dhaliwal Environmental Review: Environmental Impact Report Paul Jensen, Planning Manager, explained that a number of months ago Target placed their applications on hold with the City due to the current econo,The property owner of the Shoreline Center who funded the EIR and the fact that t�' raftEIR was 80 to 90% through the process, requested that the City complete the EIR1#nd get the document certified absent a project. Tonight the Commission is considenii?gview of the Final EIR. This meeting is not to consider the merits of the �rojict or 1p ng applications. It may be different to look at an EIR that has been i giheFed from the aal concurrent action on a project, but this is not that unusual. Staff noted that Associa �'� ismer Dhaliwal would provide a summary of the pr9Ji 4b at was1analyzed in the' hRa'as well as .p iF�" @ i�e` a summary of the EIR process and the process thi1�Ajectltassnndertaken at�t�is point. Then staff will tum it over to RBF Consultant, Whcc summarize the findings of the Final EIR. Staff further noted that one,letter was distriliul d: to the Commission from the Marin Audubon Society and staff wi1T9d during the Sar it Dhaliwal, Associate Planner, Commission with a PowerPoint pre 0 i=. following: 11� I.; IHS • Meeting Ov,-j'ew: l i3 o Puip-oscio meetiiig s� o Summart " €Prof.( o Final in • EIR and provided the that included the Christie Wheeler, RLP, Consultant, continued the PowerPoint presentation and summarized the findings of the Final EIR as follows: Topic Areas Studied in Draft EIR Draft EIR Conclusions o Draft EIR disclosed 42 potential impacts: ■ 4 significant and unavoidable impacts ■ 16 potentially significant but could be mitigated through measures to reduce impacts ■ 22 less than significant ■ 15 environmental topic areas had no impact ATTACHMENT 5 5.1 San Rafael Planning Commission Minutes September 29, 2009 — DRAFT o Significant and Unavoidable Impacts were in the area o£ ■ Traffic/Transportation ■ Land Use and Planning ■ Air Quality o Potential Significant but Mitigatable Impacts: ■ Air Quality ■ Biological Resources ■ Geology and Soils ■ Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology ■ Water Quality A All■ Traffic flH a • Final EIR Contents: 11 li o Draft EIR and Appendices li 311=# I'l o List of persons, organizations and agele'ies. that commL&d on the Draft EIR � 16 4l 1;1; sr � a" =t•l➢,� t o Copies of all comments receives bal �; �`l•d•lil`' o Written responses to all commentsli � l41 Olt o Revisions to Draft EIR triggers by come is made on the draft o Appendices ll,, s • Final EIR Master Responses: o Air Quality: aa'�ia" ■ GHG emissions ' 1, P -11,a $ , „ l o Biological l3esources: l„l•s,'.s�ll , 3C111a'SiPfnrr tore ;3@ al'' o Hazards s r rrecnvlpess or rmugauon measures $f'3katentiaf8or intrusion from contaminated groundwater ■ lj�ate cl tion ■ Pil' driving ,ll' ]colo gy 44 Water Quality: ■Cap4ty of City owned drainage pond 6=� 6f_ Rel tionship of MMWD pond HNii ?ite detention and retention for undersized stormwater drainage o Transportation/Traffic: • Potential need to signalize the main street and Francisco/I-580 westbound off ramp • Cumulative traffic without the planned major transportation improvements actually being in place o Urban Decay: ■ Definition of "Urban Decay” ■ Did not consider current economic crisis • Conclusions: ATTACHMENT 5 5.2 San Rafael Planning Commission Minutes September 29, 2009 —DRAFT o Responses to comments include identification of revisions to text in the Draft EIR o Text changes do not add significant new information to the Draft EIR but provide clarification or minor modifications o Comments and responses to not result in any new impacts o Revised and new mitigation measures are included Planning Manager Jensen concluded the PowerPoint presentation on the Final FIR noting the following: • Certifying Final EIR independent of the project action woo,d not prejudice review , asap or bias action on the project. • This action would not grant an entitlement or land ul velopment approval. ' a • Action merely acknowledges it as an information T o`cu ent for review for a Target project or other future When project is reactivated or projects. project 31 r°o'`'po€sed for thisiW1: the Final EIR • will be reviewed, amended, supplementyAj r re ilid# • No major findings necessary to certify O" _' iled fii)°gl�ngs including` tidings of overriding consideration will be made when` 8 v eG> 're's t'eviewed anMetion taken on project applications. ����_ lr j 3 3.a3. Diane Henderson, representing properf g reviewed f114 ineaJ;EIR and concurred with staff's recommendation that this is a cdrt��eta and accurateJEIR. Chair Pick opened the pulllallearing on, Roger Roberts, MCIubmittec3 written document to the Commission that concluded that the FEIR has not rfiB �gnde dequately to 1 L comments on the DEIR and is not ready for certification. TH 1I �i not complete and deserves further analysis. Theo W8k3'V coric g re on n the written document submitted, which he read intsli e record'Ks tllows'1€;113, Greenhouse Gig',tnissior0 (GHG): The FEIR on page 11-15 dismisses the need b11,�stimate the pro ` ots GH ' Femission impacts by relying on the general global clg°akellghange stra-kies cited in Table 4.4-9 in the DEIR. It goes on to claim that itis not $Ia Bible to ttanfify the GHG emission impacts or what the effect would be of foll" these strategies, and it appears only to estimate direct emissions for this prof tself. This is inadequate. The induced GHG emissions for customer vehiLular travel can be estimated. The Target Company knows the expected geographic radius of its market, the expected number of customers it can anticipate, the average distance they will have to travel to shop at the project location, and the expected average expenditure of each shopping customer. We note that the DEIR indicates that the turning movements into and out of Shoreline Parkway as a result of the project will more than double from the existing baseline, which leads us to believe that the Target project expects to attract somewhere between 700 to 1000 customers per day on average, practically all of whom will have to come to the store by car. Using this data, it is possible to estimate the GHG emissions of this segment of total emissions from the Target ATTACHMENT 5 5.3 San Rafael Planning Commission Minutes September 29, 2009 — DRAFT project and plan for offsetting these impacts over the coming years. Whether there emissions are considered to be "significant' in the cumulative context is problematic. Whether they are deemed "significant' or not in CEQA terms, the project can mitigate those impacts by and large through the construction of a LEED Gold or better building, combined with the purchase of offsets. The City deserves to know what the GHG impact is and respond appropriately to meet its obligations under AB32. The Target project FEIR has to develop this analysis so that the City can make an informed planning response. 2. Urban Decay: The DEIR and the FEIR make only a limited attempt to determine the impact on the local business community from this prod. The analysis takes the position that the economic and social effects on the ffoq cdo not have significant environmental impacts because of the pres;gpd resilience of retail markets in Marin in years past. Yet the ERA that the Target project expects to capture sub market in the apparel, general merchandize ggo market segments. In a market where populti this means that other existing businesseRI ill point of physical vacancy and decay. Yet tliIi attempt to determine this potential for urban is not communities. This is notary tq,,Fhat the Court 6641 for and, therefore, must be ana`t>et;further in this Jean Starkweather, MCL, continued to submitted document as follows: ,DEIR clearly shows � e regional retail s „ ?gs and appliances :edly suffer, &Wft 6 the ic{ the FEIR males no San Rafael and nearby ites in the DEIR clearly calls M from the 3. Landfill LeachatM61160tion: The FSR addressd9 the potential for vapor intrusion frolba ontam ii 'fed groundwater in Master Response H-2. In that r=6s;g_: discussion; "it t Mated thWIthe landfill ig'currently managed in compliance with Um post closure wash €tiscl a Ogrequiremerifs and that additional fill on top of the gt cleaftflayer°vl diffi;feduce the potential for soil gas vapor W !not i°dossed in the FEIR is the potential for escape of non- mpoun�s m le eh tRAbat is in route to the sewer. Instances of pump parently ue to vAdalism, and visible presence of seep are noted on 7 of the IR and page 11-15 of the FEIR. What is the probability that to co, ',,d compromise the leachate conveyance system? What mitigatiditoa e proposed for such contingencies? 4. Setback/BuAe7t ,Aa Rafael General Plan CON -11 states "Preserve and protect areas that fugeiion as wildlife corridors, particularly those areas that provide E natural connections permitting wildlife movement between designated sensitive habitats. " This applies to the part of the Target project, which is shown as a buffer area on the east side of the project. This land, 76-103 feet in width between the edge of the Shoreline Park and the edge of the Target parking lot, lies between the Canalways Marsh to the north and the MMWD pond and Bayview Marsh to the south. The FEIR states that because these marshes are otherwise surrounded by urban development and that this reduces their habitat suitability for most special -status species. It indicates that this buffer is therefore not of much importance to wildlife. It should have been explained, instead, that this is exactly ATTACHMENT 5 5.4 San Rafael Planning Commission Minutes September 29, 2009 — DRAFT why the wildlife corridor is important. Its location! Movement between marshes is important, and there is no other place for these birds to go. This is not only for special -species animal and birds, but also for many others. This eastern buffer has three functions. On is as an amenity for the Target project. Another function is as wildlife corridor. The third function is as a buffer for people, helping to protect the Shoreline Park users from noisy parking lots. The FEIR misses these points completely and therefore should recommend a wider buffer to accomplish these purposes. The setback/buffer on the western side of the project is a slope outside wall. The FEIR describes it as 25 feet, and to be vegetated. The neighboring Home Depot had similar situation on its west side. Becaus%There was not enough flat ground surface between their wall and the slope, they!could never get their ffl "buffering" plants to grow. This FEIR should look attaarea and recommend solution, either a less steep slope or a wider buffer,;y�i33 Need for Reduced Alternative: The MCL agreses Nth the'fiq gs in the FEIR that there are significant and unavoidable it l3 of ,from this p V- ' 9A that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level., hs leads us to the con' ''sion that the !`' i tP11 e FEIR also needs to include an analysiysbjo addirional alternative" qua smaller retail operation for this site than the apprdi—telyj#&be-acre size pf�`ect now being proposed. T311fl,", In conclusion, this FEIR shoul thb, he certified urihl requested analyses are provided.;g!E Bob Spofford, Sustainable .&n Rafael, disc' s td transpo fion and traffic and in their comments submitted op10:10 jlt, they poi d out twoi irojects in long range plan that this project depends. One i e wideningf!East Francisco between Bellam and Grand and the other iso 'e and s !ass tunder I- 5801horeline Parkway. They asked at that time for long range an�iw it!tl�ose twofcbnstruction projects. Those projects are extraordina aicir!ailar toy siting! that ening of West Francisco and they cannot be buried ii joi'INe long aq flan. Wb34 pointed out in the EIR that the Target project or a pr that magnitui one di riot trigger those two projects, but clearly Target or a prolec!that magnituaould take them down a road toward needing those two projects. Tll ng -range p assumed those two projects would be primarily funded by the developer, they mustli o to Target or whoever replaces Target in the future and ask for their fair shay ey as led for recognition of the fact that those two critical improvements be fl°gel at this point and called out specifically as being extraordinary improvements that he political and economic implications and must be treated as a special case. Consultant Wheeler responded to the MCL letter in regard to GHG emissions and the comment indicated that they did not estimate the potential amounts of GHG emissions from the proposed project in the DEIR, but it was done. Table 4.4-8 has an estimate of annual GHG emission projections by pollutant source. Where the EIR perhaps fails is in making a final determination as to the level of significance. There is still some debate on how GHG emissions will be studied and the cumulative nature of GHG emissions makes it problematic to create a threshold of significance. At this point they have not stated ATTACHMENT 5 5.5 San Rafael Planning Commission Minutes September 29, 2009 — DRAFT whether it is a significant impact or less than significant impact. However, they included a table with the attorney general's guidelines for reducing GHG emissions and indicated ways in which the project would meet those strategies. In addition, since the DEIR was prepared the City has approved a Climate Action Plan that includes a list of implementing programs intended to target reductions in GHG emissions and that Climate Action Plan would be implemented with the project at some future date. They believe they have quantified the amount of GHG emissions that would result from the project and there are ways in which GHG emissions would be mitigated. James Edison, Principal, Economic Research Associates, responds regard to urban decay and some comments are based on misap .re exactly the urban decay analysis is suppose to accomplish. , a,y'gnt include Target, it has been super Wal -Marts. In his opini '? t v�d the issue, but there has been no case law involving TargeThey di resiliency of a particular retail market. They lookedldlafng-term in census date based on survey of expenditures in ger to understand spent on certain categories and then examine4A growth and population, which in Marin County is° a of the Bay Area as well as income to look at what ft above current demand. There is a statement that Tar regional retail market, but what it Not is a market growth. In some cases that is ovOt, project any practical kind of business or st is urban blight. It is fully expected as new some stores in existenc�,�e!Q'4$ttut of bush there is enough den}„ ' in the t grket for larger debate of wlietlie Wal-Mart or Target are to the results dl Tgrowth as w Rome of its is good or I to the MCL letter in 1-11ision about what case law does not Worthwhile to examine Owt rely upon t3itb.trends, used current money is [rket, future lin�iif6d, compared to Other parts ii emand would be over and a si ificant amount of the ca amount of the retail this an lis is not intended to int to pri?vent urban decay, which ii­ Qalhitig-they will actually cause xat�ined in the aggregate whether to take the place. There is a much t retailers can find niches that a a n*the r niferms of services, products or Leq late there is enough demand from customers downtown in addition to the Target that is in place. s based on projection of income, project of tl market. In addition, they expect that Target will xs based on anecdotal evidence. Terry Carter, C91 nviro3rliHental Services, responded to the MCL letter in regard to landfill leachate coli,,° t& and stated that it was noted on the north side of the landfill there was some seeps ,e and subsequent to that it was tested and those tests came out clean, but due to regulations, they put in two collection trenches that are French drains and each one is served by a sump pump that are combined and discharge to the sanitary sewer at the south end of the landfill. They monitor the leachate monthly and report to the Sanitary District on a quarterly basis. The leachate has been pretty clean. There are some heavy hydrocarbons in the motor oil range and they do not see any volatile organic compounds. They dropped those analyses because they were not present and it is monitored monthly and reported quarterly. They had a unfortunate shutdown due to copper wire being removed, so they had to rebuild the system and it is currently up and running. Over the last two years they pumped about 200,000 gallons, so it does not seep a ATTACHMENT 5 5.6 San Rafael Planning Commission Minutes September 29, 2009 — DRAFT lot but it does seep some. Almost every landfill has to deal with a leachate situation, but this is a pretty minor leachate and not like Redwood Landfill where there are hundreds of thousands of gallons of leachate that must be addressed. Jeff Dreier, WRA Biologist, responded to the MCL letter in regard to the setback/buffers and explained that the site is largely surrounded by urbanization development. Wildlife species suggest that these animals are moving through urbanized areas and this is common for species that are acclimated to this kind of environment such as: raccoons, skunks, possums, coyotes, red fox, house mice, and rats can adapt to a lot of situations. They largely move at night. They are not seen but are out there. Deer are very common IIHI 11 urban animals as well. They can survive different habitats and, U4, up'with disturbances. The proposed buffer plus the Shoreline Park along the east pd ',provide a suitable corridor for the animals to move. It will serve as a suitab #ix n d provide cover to hide during the day. It is his opinion that this corridor buffer will ion suitably for these urbanized animals. The DEIR did not idenfifyjOQOITebial-statin " cies in this area, so the corridor is suitable as proposed. He then addressed the sugg©n that the buffer along the west side be greater than 25 #-1 again'i els urbanized vt�i�alifd and they will move through the parking lot if they have aC& '3throu'1 4 4e night. 25 'would be suitable as long as it is vegetated, but most animals vofa'1ir1!'not remain in that area during ttI the day and they would work their way, around the parking£lopt and stay within cover. 9j 3 Planning Manager Jensen discussed thea°!! e9,4t, reduced a5f alive. The alternatives were scoped at the time the DEIR was prepared"atadequatly identified two alternatives that are environmentally superior la+staffu1not believe a new alternative should be added nor wodigQ The the anpro late time t1' do so. Nader Mansourian;" ffl-F, Eng ."eer, responder # #comments from Sustainable Mann and explained that analyslocte9T_long-,iurm impact is the baseline condition, which is thq #it term futul- chat is tli s�sting traffic with the project as approved and any roacj F` yimprA4 gnts pla ed for the next five years. For the long-term scenario such a =the General PIM020 buil out, staff conducted a similar scenario back in 2004 when Wdi Ik ng on GeneralIP-lan lan4hises since they are projected for the next 20 years. They used fiat analysis witliloday s traffic conditions to see if all the project were approved tylia kipd of imp"" vements are needed and it was clearly noted that most of the ffi"x3} intersections in tlaIity f�Iled and that is why they have $50 million of improvements over the next 20 ydnsWor the purpose of EIR, staff analyzed the projected improvements appro ed in the General Plan considering land uses projected for the next 20 years. It is sort of comparing apples and oranges if they run the scenario with today's application, but using the future land uses and some improvements. Staff further noted that it would indicate that the intersections will fail at least along Bellam, Kerner and Andersen. Mr. Dreier responded to the Marin Audubon Society letter that focused on wildlife corridors and special -status species and explained that he addressed the corridors and those comments are very similar. Again, there are no special -status species that would be moving north to south on the east side. There are special -status birds that are moving by ATTACHMENT 5 5.7 San Rafael Planning Commission Minutes September 29, 2009 — DRAFT air and flying shrub -to -shrub. They would fly over and survey the area from the sky. There are no special -status species in the area. The salt -marsh harvest mouse is associated with title habitats during high tide or high waters. The wetlands features do not flood, so the buffers proposed are adequate to provide that upland habitat near these wetlands. In terms of fencing and potential access point for the trail from the parking lot area, the issue was that this would provide more stress on the buffer area and it could be alleviated by providing buffer plantings along those access trails or paved walkways to provide dense shrubbery to prevent people from wondering in the buffer areas and provide visual buffer between activity and animals. In his opinion these animal will become easily acclimated to these conditions. It is a heavily used area and the llife would become acclimated overtime to this increase in use. $ h' ' Commissioner Paul discussed urban decay and asked if any 'stud1 s were conducted on the economic impact on urban decay in Novato from theiV, tage Q, s Target. Mr. Edison stated not to his knowledge. This is a discus&tilnllte had with si 4 and there have �=3 been no lawsuits and no challenges. This is a lard&Target and has simi at Lange of goods to a Wal-Mart, and logical advice given to staftthat so m ggOne might cha age"; San Rafael Planning Commission Minutes September 29, 2009 — DRAFT confidence factor, staff cannot receive a better response than from the individual that designed the pond. Commissioner Kirchmann noted there are specific discussions in the appendix about the impact on the existing 18 in. pipe along shoreline and in order to accommodate the additional runoff from this site, some additional drainage facilities must be constructed. Planning Manager Jensen responded in the affirmative. Chair Pick pointed out that onsite detention is part of the new green building standards. Commissioner Wise believed there is sufficient explanation that there is capacity in the City pond, but she is concerned about the 18 in. pipe and the Target,store cannot J-lcontribute more than 15 cubic ft. per second of storm runoff, soi'§& asked staff if it JV addresses the cumulative impact on the 18 in. pipe. She also,gp}ndered if the mitigation measure should be reworded to state, `Detain as much W rWr`,;Rr4 �� �,??e cumulative capacity is not exceeded. Planning Manager Jensen respoii led thatl e before and after calculations included the impervious surface coveragdWQpi`the Sonii""`3i'�d.ealership, so that 15 cubic ft. per second runoff incorporated that dealership, so it ass&the cumulative conditions in the context of that pi�lr ji or that`Venter. Staff c � g , �,siespond to addressing drainage on the other side of Shoreline here a=r1 here is one other remaining parcel that is undeveloped behind the old GM dealers ' flEonsultant Wheeler pointed out that the goal of mitigation is to ensurq{there is not any E" ,�"gter runoff from the site than is currently leaving the site. To change tl le£ ,. tiation to addbM other sites in the center that might also be draining into the future wr1 't i 8o}pg an obhg gt�!V on the project that has no nexus. Commissioner Wise just wante, e fa, sure the' mitigation measure addresses the capacity in tho,pipe with all gthextevelopi. Commissioner Kirc i` "" dish ed page 11 20 in regard to water quality control as well i as stormwater deten8 a s b° surface stolq tank is notpracticable due to the landfill and he wanted to,, MR °th t t ff has confirmed the feasibility of bio retention facilities at thiN19 d the$1 ted issi i }it5d be to make sure there is enough room to qr3;a=�==sa; . s §s, f install stofthwater ti ent a li *es to treat the stormwater onsite before traveling into publi system. Consul eei' 1i sated that there are several opportunities onsite to 1 �' °'1':.g . pP do bio rete ion. Especia given e fact that there are such wide buffers along the boarder of'tproperty as " °.11 as within the parking lot itself within the landscape areas. wat In terms of quality cgol as well as bio retention onsite, they have not fully investigated thesbility� �f having a sub -surface storage tank, so it is not necessarily out of the question: {;Pli�lite will require quite a bit of fill in order to create the building pad. Commissioner ' iichmann wanted to be sure analysis has been preformed to confirm that indeed there is enough available surface area and depth to have an effectively functioning bio retention facility that is adequate to accommodate the entire amount of stormwater from the developed site. Consultant Wheeler believed there is. Commissioner Kirchmann discussed page 11-26 in regard to Mitigation Measure Tl and believed references to the Target store should be made more generic. In Mitigation Measure Tl -E, he did not understand what is intended in terms of specifying the projects share of the proposed improves. Planning Manager Jensen explained that the $500,000 is an estimate for the combined improvements. The fair share amount is whatever that ATTACHMENT 5 5.9 San Rafael Planning Commission Minutes September 29, 2009 — DRAFT proportion of traffic that is contributed to this intersection by this site alone to be determined at the time in which it is reviewed. Also, the $10,000 is a separate amount to conduct the traffic studies. Commissioner Kirchmann did not know how long it took for traffic patterns to stabilize after Home Depot was built, so he suggested looking at a longer period of time. Planning Manager Jensen believed that is a logical suggestion. As time goes on, the novelty of going to the store at peak periods would go back to its normal trip generation, so a latter date is more appropriate. Traffic Engineer Mansourian noted that it would take around six months for the area to stabilize. Ah, Commissioner Kirchmann discussed page 11-60 and points under 1-64 refer to outdoor field lighting and e modified. Planning Manager Jensen responded in the Kirchmann then discussed page 11-67 and asked wht adjustment of the intersection phasing for the int�s'ec Francisco Boulevard will be adequate to redupnl e p than significant impact. Traffic Engineer Mansouri Shoreline/Francisco operates at level of service (LOQ maintaining the intersections delay they, can achieve 1 vehicles from Shoreline to tam right.ld fiver, the cl have the left turn movement from Shore'n tL?ranci z, exclusive signal timing. They have a lonl�ange �i Commissioner Kirchmarm clarified with st {f that the that the last two bullet ling, which should be staff is coil"Alnt that of Shoreline 11ay and East Tally significant ' ad't to less oldcd that the intersection of B. Adjusting signal timing and hilso, there will be a lot of Qiiwhen monitor the area to Bou* r'd that would be that-Yhey can allocate. 4'69ult is that staff is confident that by adjusting the signal t 'i0,,they can m'a'intain the adbeptable LOS. Traffic Engineer Mansourian responded in the a%mative Colimissioner Kirchmann discussed the phrasing of the mitigatLdh measu .ne in terms of ibcommended and believed it should state, "these steps must be ta�,�°gTor ii3O re-undefineJ1steps must betaken to accomplish performance,o% v s HOU Min lit�ttliat`a recommendation does not provide assuranci ltliat the'R on w11f ccur. He then asked staff whether revised Mitigation Measpt,%Tl supersedes}ha ongma }tigation Measure T4. Planning Manager Jensen agrded"tQ a' firm and cote6t the riMit gation table. Commissions } irchmann 0 ented on Mitigation Table 2-24 in regard to H-3 and felt ' h 13 in this particulai 31- withi ome confidence know that appropriate measures could be implemented but tH tb tj6tion measures must be revised to specify the condition asked to obtain and must b sure there are measures that will accomplish that goal. It is not enough to sample and try to figure it out later. Consultant Wheeler agreed to modify the language. Planning Manager Jensen noted that it must be performance based. Commissioner Kirchmann discussed page 2-35 on that same table in regard to WQ-4 and his only concern was whether the City is confident that CDS filters are feasible at this particular site. He believed they will fit without interfering with the fill cap over the landfill, but wanted to be sure that it is satisfied. Consultant Wheeler did not see any reason why it could not work. It is part of the drainage system and it is very common. An onsite drainage system is required and that system will be able to incorporate this filter. ATTACHMENT 5 5.10 San Rafael Planning Commission Minutes September 29, 2009 — DRAFT Commissioner Kirchmann discussed page 2-38 in regard to Mitigation Measure WQ-8 and believed they need to be looking at the amount of stormwater flow to the existing 18 in. pipe and look at wastewater onsite treatment and then drainage system from the project to the City pond to convey the additional water. He pointed out that one 18 in. pipe is not adequate to convey all drainage from this site ignoring the current undeveloped parcel across the street, so it must be modified to address. Commissioner Sonnet feared that the traffic has been unintentionally understated to the project. When he looks at the traffic modeling by the Institute of T's ffic Engineers (ITE) provides a number in the PM hours that is much greater than us InTthe report and is uncomfortable that the discussion is adequate. If they revie,, t the Albany store, it ?` Eal, could be very different from the store being proposed in that w�ai er its surface characteristics are it is in a much more highly competitivo' gnvirorint. When looking at other Targets in the East Bay or Kmart, Wal-Mart ox€C€ §,tco' stores, is more isolated and has fewer competitive charges again `it might do better. T E model indicates 75% more traffic than what is predic�,using° e Albany mol t N.Ae' cannot say whether the ITE models or Albany numbier�°"dight, ti there is enou'that he suspects that the Albany numbers could be wrong. Il "sired some type of sensitivity analysis. Traffic Engineer Mansourian discussed the 2 9P,)anning Commission PSP Ml meeting where staff analyzed using th rates fora eriry big box store. The 3=-r t g '`� -��3 �p9. consultants studied Target and presente tiirl3rs,that were alist half Wal-Mart type lia.'n'�_ 35 store. The Albany. Target store was not 4 only -s 0 3 tudied.;Staffreviewed Colma, the Fairfield area and other Bay Area cities S f 0viewed IN y since it was similar to ��s i#q�� `a, San Rafael. Albany was o ec the higher ru �' bers The numbers picked for Albany are conservative than otti"r Targe ' res. The relationship between the Target's specific rates does not match wiffi FJTE rat 'because the PIlhrate includes super Wal-Mart in the mid west and other Stats t3 at isolate. Reasonable assumptions were used for the Albany T,', term i emo4 �h1 customers and proximity he had no knowle4o. They a1 , , ew chat fully the trip distribution where customers will come fromtluch is Centra7�arin andlthern Marin County and some west, but not much froom Nbuato and no 3i 111 Commissionetj et belid+`. bd it seems possible that this Target store would do significantly bett , an Altrany. Traffic Engineer Mansourian cannot say for sure 100% 1, Iffthese numbers are a�Ote, but they are reasonable. Staff reviewed other trip generation studies similar to IT s Tates and staff's estimation. For example, Home Depot itself is within a few of the trips staff predicted in the 1990s. Certain seasons it will be higher and lower. There is a chance for them to do much better, but staff has no means to figure that out at this time. In terms of sensitivity analysis, staff noted that Bellam/Kerner is at capacity. Bellam/Francisco/I-580 will reach closer to capacity. As far as analysis for EIR setting, staff must use what is available. Commissioner Sonnet felt they are in a situation where they cannot do better then the Albany store or they will run into all those problems at those intersections. Traffic Engineer Mansourian noted that they constantly monitor the capacity for the system. ATTACHMENT 5 5.11 San Rafael Planning Commission Minutes September 29, 2009 — DRAFT Commissioner Sonnet discussed the aesthetics of the project and he is still troubled by a question he asked at the DEIR stage that has not adequately been answered and that is the aspect of the claim that the site is clean of scenic resources. One protected scenic vista in San Rafael are views of Mt. Tam from public viewing areas such as the shoreline path. In the simulations there is a picture, which is 4.3-413 that shows a view from the path along the Bay to show that Mt. Tam is still available, which of course simulated passed the building. He raised that last time where if they took the same view when they were not passed the building would the building obscure Mt. Tam or not and the response was not adequate. If the building along with its 52 ft. architectural element, if it does obscure the view of Mt. Tam from the path it should be stated to be aware ofRt. He asked why the simulation is shown passed where the building ends. Consulta�t3Wileeler spent time out in the field selecting viewing locations. Each location is whehe project would be most visible. They walked up and down the path and looked fof4 aces q:see Mt. Tam more prominently than other locations. On the path walkin oheriy She begins to obscure Mt. Tam. There are indeed going to be places alongI orolI c Park tI a. 4t. Tam is not visible. They tried to find the most prominent loediions to do the work Oommissioner ffl,Sonnet is very familiar with the path and Mt., a as seen'along the entire` dhd to say the most prominent site was chosen happens not accept. He desired a simulation to know Tam. h" Commissioner Sonnet discussed landsc surviving around Home Depot and that They must better ui be done to see if th Also, he could not where the end of th 150 ft., but when lc informed h mmtl14 the dist c from t second4iorhon was project app = on, so desired an on gshow that he is not Cohen of the landscaping€s', the WOR bi ijding does no exist, he did the buildine obscures Mt. was dif o'hlty with plantings 7�nit been,dnswered adequately either. of thiiv�ig'. More thought or study must site thai' causes the plants not to thrive. t where it actually showed a drawing w6l'to the nearest olke path. There is a comment that it is hejd�tgs he doe's not understand that number. Staff i �3 ° 3aeg �0 A." m 48 16 the lower bike path. Staff indicated that '�zp rking lot to the nearest bike path was 90 ft. and the ft Pere. He further desired a drawing in that regard. d that e site plan used was the site plan that was part of the j,st took a scale and measured it. Commissioner Sonnet edge of the bike path to the parking lot. He further noted he proposed project would be executed as portrayed in terms Commissioner Wise discussed ITE rates vs. Albany rates and she understands that Albany represents local conditions, but desired clarification that the traffic consultant Target hired to study other sites confirmed that those counts were lower than the counts collected at the Albany store. Traffic Engineer Mansourian reviewed all sites and settings to isolate Target as much as possible. Staff used a higher, but reasonable number and that is why they chose the Albany location. Commissioner Wise stated that the decision was not based on higher trip generation rates, but also based on settings and similar conditions that staff felt match what was being proposed in San Rafael. Traffic Engineer Mansourian responded in the affirmative. ATTACHMENT 5 5.12 San Rafael Planning Commission Minutes September 29, 2009 — DRAFT Commissioner Wise discussed transportation and the LOS on Bellam/Kerner and asked staff about adjusting the signal timing. Traffic Engineer Mansourian responded that signal timing is not used as a mitigation. If an intersection starts to fail staff looks at adjustments to reallocate signal timing to optimize signal time. Bellam/Kerner already exceeds the intersection capacity, so signal timing by itself would not help. Staff further noted that Bellam, Andersen and Kerner work as a system. Commissioner Wise discussed the recommended verbiage in regard to required vs. recommended and did not understand why they cannot make that change. Throughout the it entirety of the EIR they use the term, "recommended. " She beli:d the intersection of Shoreline/Kemer should state, "signal timing shall be a "recommend. " Traffic Engineer Mansourian noted that Works mitigation measure, not the applicants. Staff cq� optimum. " Planning Manager Jensen stated that the an is a question about whether or not it is necessary tt shoo determined by the City's Trak Engineer desired that modification. Commissioner Wise discussed page 4,. back of the Target building and yet M excluded from the north perimeter of t fair to say this photo simulation is not isted,T as opposed to fhe City=of San Rafael Public state, `S1%all be at its L ge should ;;shall. " If there state, "shall`li ne, unless ssarv. " C0 6 Wise 4 that shows ii A ure tall trees screening the trees change any conclusi� reached in thk g Wheeler respond �ed th li vQ pot. The v view of the site and ,ri„ intend UJo show pi selection of tree€there will so there may not be ast� nd dfigg..lattdsc doubt that the'kttdwsll be srlile from fhiififl ....ails_ Measure i9istates "tall trees should be t -,�� 11ite to reduckptor habitat, " so it is rr 'H'-1 asked=`would not having those it to to visual quality. Consultant rl simulation is showing an approximate ously what the site will look like. The 9: 06 p.m. of the back of the building en, but some screening. There is no location with the building and Commission0l.Krchmann eked if it is possible to incorporate mitigation measures to make this develbfi.i`� nt cflon neutral. Consultant Wheeler stated that it is not. She explained that the tro t I response prepared did attempt to address the comment made last year that it is termly more feasible with a residential project, but with a commercial project because the majority of GHG emissions are generated from vehicle trips there is no way to remove the vehicle trips. Therefore to make it carbon neutral would be close to impossible. It would have to be a project where there are no vehicle trips. There are ways to reduce the amount of GHG emissions and those will be implemented as part of the project. Commissioner Kirchmann is struggling with PM -2.5 and understands that PM -2.5 is a potential significant issue, but there is no data or standards to compare it against. Consultant Wheeler stated that the measures that would reduce PM -10 would also reduce ATTACHMENT 5 5.13 San Rafael Planning Commission Minutes September 29, 2009 —DRAFT PM -2.5. Currently, there is no State threshold, only federal threshold. There is no monitoring, so there is no way to measure what the existing PM -2.5 is. There is no way to determine what proper mitigation would be for that impact, except to apply mitigation measures for PM -10. Commissioner Kirchmann asked staff if the Commission and City Council would be able, as part of the merits review of the project at this location, to require analysis on a reduced size alternative. Planning Manager Jensen responded that staff must investigate. Staff assumed that if someone has requested that an applicant look at a smaller project as part of merits review, which would be similar as looking at an altematiyes analysis that has happened before on other projects that it would probably be th $'brie=type of request and could conceivably be required. Commissioner Kirchin s 'd. at approval of the ,s, a'Project would require a statement of overridingconsider ion'r;' when the Cin exercises its discretion of balancing those competing development and environmental impact, to see would be. Planning Manager Jensen does not k the EIR and having it re -circulated as a draft si just directing an applicant to downsize a proje( considered, but if a bonafide alternative that is answer is no. 1h,, Commissioner Wise discussed Mifigatii interpretive signage at the edge of the de location, quality and content Consultant N responsibility to identlfv�h dl prepare Planning Manager J$'en note '#iat there are park specification -plans and��¢¢ lso on fu East San Rafael wetlands�rea �taffabeliel it ANG) M)if11� lth'6i njiacts of a'i e aced project if it could be done ithout reopening is a ne , alternative. 14ilil'o mg at o, �#i&its review that could be li¢N jlior looking at impacts then the e Bio -4 on iige'4.5-21 that requires ne rr; ri pskeda rho, will determine its. ;ler agr'eg'add language to provide more review it,as well as what it will state. specifications along Shoreline Park. There 'i� tkat were built into a larger plan for the here are signage specifications for zment as well. Commissioner Wise agreed Chair P l�iscussed the 4f "olutioril'd id noted confusion in regard to Item No. 5 and asked staff�o ,an explana i. PI Manager Jensen stated the EIR analyzes impacts of the specifielpkOject. The -are indeed just certifying an EIR based on considerations that are in place ar � this � ject that has been analyzed. This document analyzes that specific project and'!'- 'es specifics. Consultant Wheeler added that there are a number of different scenarios tiri'might happen in the future. The developer may come back with a Target or a store similar to Target and the City will review the certified EIR and determine applicability of the document and mitigations measures identified to the project. Very likely there will be some additional environmental documentation to address changes to the project itself and the environmental circumstances at the time the project comes in such as additional traffic studies. That does not mean that the work done and mitigation measures identified would not be applicable to that project. The City in preparing a follow up environmental document will identify and add mitigation measures and maybe review the impacts again. Chair Pick indicated that the EIR is not an entitlement and asked if there are any scenarios that would preclude the City's discretion ATTACHMENT 5 5.14 San Rafael Planning Commission Minutes September 29, 2009 —DRAFT of opening up any environmental review or the content of the certified FEIR, if in fact it is certified. Consultant Wheeler stated that there are provisions in CEQA that the City would review. In particular, maybe the project has not changed, but the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken have changed and that would be the trigger that the City would be able to further evaluate the environmental consequences of the project. If nothing has changed, then the developer and applicant can prove that and the City may not have the ability legally to require additional review. The Target project would have to come in fairly soon after certification to be reviewed for its project merits, in particular traffic. The City should closely identify if there have been changes that should be evaluated in a new environmental document. Planning Manager Jensen stated the applicability of this document is very narrowed to the prof cl�'afYand and timing has a lot to do with it. Even with the minimal review of an EIR ac 4e1 um where they review the EIR and determine and conclude there are no changes, ces4 , to the document but still have to do an addendum, staff suspects other subs require the document to be opened up again, supple stated that given that narrow scope in every respedtthal reconsideration. Commissioner Kirchmann ngtg?tl}at t1 -M= limited to the factors that have changed. PlanningK9, type of decision made in choosing the direction of a gut on a couple of topic areas that must bei vdated, then sti that would be re -circulated and re -re*- 'I then start s topic areas. Planning Manager Commission's con as ntlalchantavould likely ted 3or re-revied. Chair Pick this EIR would baubject to at the scope of re& tderation is ged%issen agreed and that is the 'men' document. If focused f�r°yould do a supplemental EIR frol , ,Pgatrh on those specific summarized the • Suggestion yth t under gafron Meag re Tl to minimize or eliminate reference to the "Tay;etRJOre prod t" and to arridnd B, which is the post occupancy timeframe for a's' segJ61traffic stud 'o an extended date such as six months or • lY ifigation Ivl4�sure T34 ,ilhe language suggested is that the intersection phasing l g shall be adyustrc so it r l' r#andate rather than a recommendation. Sl gation Measur 4 - dee in its entirety because it is not significant impact for `WI ich there is rim1ttgation. • MitigatitMMeasurdsP3 — the second part of the mitigation measure is vague in terms of'r'ttlediatJOW and staff proposes to identify examples of what remediation �.;: would be ariii°pi Kide performance standards. • Mitigation Measure WQ-8 - add language that runoff would be directed to the City's stormwater pond to the north. • Mitigation Measure Bio4 - add language that addresses the responsibility for signage and the City's shoreline enhancement plan. • Provide errata sheet to City Council along with these changes to the mitigation measures and a site plan that addresses concerns about the distance between the parking lot and bike path. Staff noted that an exhibit will be provided that shows that distance ATTACHMENT 5 5.15 San Rafael Planning Commission Minutes September 29, 2009 — DRAFT • Additional photo simulation or alteration to the photo simulation of the view back to Mt. Tam from other points along the pathway to disprove there will be significant impacts. • Question about plantings in terms of a mitigation measuring guaranteeing their survival. • Reinforcement of the language throughout the document where the word, "shall" or "require " should be used as opposed to "recommend" when controllable by the project sponsors. • Confirm that the photo simulation in regard to the tall trees, even though not accurate, would not result in a significant impact. Commissioner Sonnet continues to feel that a traffic sensitivt�analysis is needed. III M= l Commissioner Kirchmann noted that without rerunning the mod" - ';.they still would have significant unavoidable impacts at Bellam and Kemeral 'h will N ;Wore of a problem 3! ae, at Main and I-580, so a sensitivity analysis will no� $sniN any hung ttpp measures that would be different. Traffic Engineer Mansourl aioted that Bellam and Ifei er qre already at capacity for the morning peak hour ` akeady;qxceeds its ow =NJS a aIa standards without the Target project. A sensitivity) lysis Iasrequired theyAhll add 10 to 20% more and it will fail at some point and the quest 5J1 what they will get out of that analysis in terms of mitigation. Co,,, y�,8sioner Sonnet waii' d to know when it would fail. If 10% causes that additional failure it , �be known. T cEngineer Mansourian um noted that it is not easy, but it is possible:' soWtmted by the commission. �l, s �3 Ali , ��, Commissioner Sonnet statedJf they add the horo sim ht do that shows the scenic vista of Mt. Tam only frorq t&$9iVQf,the path th is directly locked by the building, he did not know what thaauld shovt3 ds hould it added in or reviewed before certification. In teis 1 Id °$mg, given th ttiportance of the wildlife buffer, and if the vegetation is importai G' x fgilthe wildlife in these narrow areas they -# must feel c gptot that dscapt gli�sue has been adequately addressed rather than jut ild it intolp come i Chair Pic) ked what wool) the mitigation be if this threshold were higher in terms of traffic. Coil pion er So felt felt there might be some additional unavoidable impacts. Planning Man's RU ensen sr;ted that the request for additional studies cannot be done unless they are pre,[z;�red t4 gh re -circulate this document. A traffic sensitivity analysis is beyond normal City!Dypetice for traffic studies. Staff understands the request as a safeguard, but right Y}w it is not linked to any sort of impact. Similarly on plant selection and alternative simulation, they run the risk of re -circulating this document. Staff believed this is a lot of effort given the fact that they have no project. Commissioner Sonnet stated if the issue is that they do not have a project and they do not want to re- circulate, it sounds like there is a sense of urgency. As stated by staff, they do not have a project, so why do they want to do something that could create major problems down the road and rush to judgment when they do not have a project. He added that expediency is not the right direction. ATTACHMENT 5 5.16 San Rafael Planning Commission Minutes September 29, 2009 — DRAFT Chair Pick stated there is certain methodology that has been followed and it is a question of standard. Consultant Wheeler noted that the idea of using different trip generation rates is a moving target. The traffic professionals that work for the City and are part of the EIR advised the developer on appropriate generation rates and all agreed that it is a reasonable assumption to make about traffic for this site. There are a lot of good thought processes that have gone into that and it was agreed upon by the Planning Commission and City Council during the PSP process and now they are talking about going back and re- evaluating traffic in this FEIR and staff is not sure they have been provided evidence that indeed the analysis is flawed. They have identified the potential impacts of the project. There are significant and unavoidable impacts and there are impaos.that could be mitigated and they are identified in the document as is required gtjy`�EQA. With regard to landscaping, they had a professional landscape architect reAi `the plant palette, the conditions on the site and soils and recommendations wedrpro ded. In their professional opinion what is proposed will work. To create a mitigjtio�.measu 61 ey need an impact and there is no impact identified in the EIR to link 16tion measure However, it is possible to provide monitoring measures and w Wthere is a project duQ'the project merits include a monitoring program to ensure lzt,the landscaping surviv ' 10, City Attorney Rob Epstein pointed out that the City g¢kj Target decided to pull out and there is,alI this effort LVI". now they are caught between a rock A Shard place. Do �. Pard work or push the ball over the goal line it 32the� best f traffic, as the discussion indicated toni h 'f anV g {I i3 __ 43a, does become the subject for a number of different` changes being constrSit 3a time because theyth40 conditions. To add mor C Sonnet is p0i'miliilrout. tl felt th,61!heed to make played, so thettp not is deep into this project before ;one into up to this point and %stop and abandon all this of it. On the point of ;etproject or similar project most likely to get revisited ;Wns, among th i being theVarious improvements and in tjia�area of to which staff has no ability to analyze at this bee °c ompleted�ere�will be more and more changes to the b 1 xlil lIgr i , aV with the reasoning Commissioner ,- do a 1 tbfW work, but then it will be revisited again rdenn the Public Works Department at the current time, he they are at a scrimmage and the lead game as yet to be take the score here too seriously. There being no fur`tti" #66iic testimony on this item, the Chair closed the public hearing and brought the matt back to the Commission for action. Chair Pick asked for a motion. Commissioner Lang moved and Commissioner Paul seconded, to adopt the Resolution recommending to the City Council certification of the FEIR as amended in the discussions and the list outlined by staff and Chair Pick, but excluding the additional studies. Commissioner Paul is not clear if there is consensus on some of these items. Where they ATTACHMENT 5 5.17 San Rafael Planning Commission Minutes September 29, 2009 — DRAFT are right now is that they are certifying the FEIR with the minor adjustments rather than reopening the process up again when they do not have a project. This project may change dramatically in the future and then these items will come up again as well as different items. This has gone on a long time and he would like to see a conclusion brought to this portion of it until whatever projects ends up happening. Chair Pick stated there is a narrow band of possible scenarios that would allow this project to proceed at such time an application of a project is brought forward that would not trigger a revisiting of traffic, which is of the greatest concern. Other issues of concern could, should and will be addressed by the process occurring tonig,t and that is why there is some value unmoving forward. There will be ample opportun f` ' when a project is brought forward to review all conditions and specifics of that] oject. Commissioner Kirchmann stated that they have separa el ra ment9sIr w and a policy decision for the City Council to make as to whethek#A1bt, to impose�l�' dens on this particular neighborhood. He is prepared to suppo he motion. In teens"prcommending certification of the EIR, they have the traffic i by s that'a Zpears to be app piate. In all likelihood when a particular project application cbr s in h Gty will take fresh look at that project. The views from an EIR standpoint of si �3at impact on aesthetics, he understands the analysis, but he has great skepticism a I e vegetation particularly d, along the northerly and western edges tet roject due to, expprience they all observed at Home Depot. It is clear to h1m l the will havepy significant potential issues about traffic generation if the project than gssi,forward is not Target. For example, a proposed WalS art would likel hake a diff €' s result especially since the traffic analysis was tied fotfiearget in Albay. They h- d that animals are not likely to € 1:a1� stay in areas that ar ':,3 t t vegetatd and they ii ATTACHMENT 6 Correspondence Received on the Final EIR September 29, 2009 Planning Commission City of San Rafael 1400 Fifth Avenue P.O. Box 151560 San Rafael, California 94915-1560 Subject: Final Environmental Impact Report Target Store Project, San Rafael Marin Conservation League (MCL) appreciates the opportunity to submit comments regarding the adequacy of the F EI R on the proposed TARGET project. We believe that the FEIR has not responded adequately to MCL comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (D E I R) and therefore is not ready for certification. Four areas of concern are detailed below. 1. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: .The FEIR on page 11-5 (Master Response AQ -1) dismisses the need to estimate the project's greenhouse gas emission impacts by relying on the general Global Climate Change Strategies cited in Table 4.4-9 in the D E I R. It goes on to claim that it is not possible to quantify the greenhouse gas emission impacts or what the effect would be of following these strategies, and it appears only to estimate direct emissions for the project itself. This is inadequate. The induced greenhouse gas emissions for customer vehicular travel can be estimated. The TARG ET Company knows the expected geographic radius of its market, the expected number of customers it can anticipate, the average distance they will have to travel to shop at the project location, and the expected average expenditure of each shopping customer. We note thatthe DE I R indicates thatthe turning movements into and out of Shoreline Parkway as a result of the project will more than double from the existing baseline, which leads us to believe that the TA RG ET project expects to attract somewhere between 700 and 1000 customers per day on average, practically all of whom will have to come to the store by car. Using this data, it is possible to estimate the greenhouse gas emissions of this segment of total emissions from the TA RG ET project and plan for offsetting these impacts over the coming years. Whether these emissions are considered to be "Significant" in the cumulative context is problematic. Whether they are deemed "significant" or not in CEQA terms, the project can mitigate those impacts by and large through the construction of a LE E D Gold or better building, combined with the purchase of offsets. The City deserves to know what the greenhouse gas impact is and respond appropriately to meet its obligations under AB32. The TA RG ET Project F EI R has to develop this analysis so that the City can make an informed planning response. 2. Urban Decay: The D E I R and the F E I R make only a limited attempt to determine the impact on the local business community from this project. The analysis takes the position that the economic and social effects of the project do not have significant environmentalimpacts because of the presumed resilience of retail markets in Marin in years past. Yet the ERA analysis in the DEIR (Table 13, ERA Memorandum "Urban Decay Analysis") clearly shows that the TARGET Project expects to capture substantial shares of the regional retail market in the apparel, general merchandise, drugstore, furnishings and appliances market segments. Ina market where population is not expanding significantly, this means that other existing businesses will undoubtedly suffer, even to the point of physical vacancy and "decay." Yet the DE i R and the 1 FE I R makes no attempt to determine or quantify this potential for urban decay in San Rafael and nearby communities. This is contrary to what the Court cases cited in the DE I R clearly call for and, therefore, must be analyzed further in this case. 3. Landfill Leachate Collection: The F E I R addresses the potential for vapor intrusion from contaminated groundwater in Master Response H-2, page. In that discussion, it is stated that the landfill is currently managed in compliance with post closure waste discharge requirements and that additional fill on top of the existing five-foot clean clay layer would reduce the potential for soil gas vapor intrusion. What is not discussed in the PEI R is the potential for escape of non- volatile compounds in leachate that is en route to the sewer. Instances of pump failure, apparently due to vandalism, and the visible presence of seep are noted on page 4.7-7 of the DE I R and page 11-15 of the FEI R. What is the probability that similar instances could compromise the leachate conveyance system? What mitigations are proposed for such contingencies? 4 Setback/buffer: San Rafael General Plan CON -11 states "Preserve and protect areas that function as wildlife corridors, particularly those areas that provide natural connections permitting wildlife movement between designated sensitive habitats." This applies to the part of the Target project which is shown as a buffer area on the east side of the project. This land, 76 to 103 feet in width between the edge of the shoreline park and the edge of the Target parking lot, lies. between the Canalways Marsh to the north and the MMW D Pond and Bayyiew Marsh to the south. The F El R states that because these marshes are otherwise surrounded by urban development and that this reduces their habitat suitability for most special -status species. It indicates that this buffer is therefore not of much importance to wildlife. It should have explained, instead, that this is exactly why the wildlife corridor is important: ITS LOCATION! Movement between marshes is important, and there is no other place for these birds to go. This is not only for special -species animals and birds, but also for many others. ( For instance, our bird list for species seen along the San Rafael shoreline and ponds contains over 150 species.) This eastern buffer has three functions. One is as an amenity for the Target project (greenery around the concrete parking lot). Another function is as wildlife corridor. The third function is as a buffer for people, helping to protect the shoreline park users from noisy parking lots. The FEIR misses these points completely and therefore should recommend a wider buffer to accomplish these purposes. The setback/buffer on the western side of the project is a slope outside a wall. The FEIS describes it as 25 feet wide, and to be vegetated. The neighboring Home Depot had a similar situation on its west side. Because there was not enough flat ground surface between their wall and the slope, they could never get their buffering" plants to grow. This FE I R should look atthis area and recommend a solution, either a less steep slope or a wider buffer. 5. Need for Reduced Alternative: The Marin Conservation League agrees with the findings in the FE I R that there are Significant and Unavoidable impacts from this project that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. This leads us to the conclusion that the FE I R also needs to include an analysis of an additional alternative for a smaller retail operation for this site than the approximately three -acre size project now being proposed . In conclusion, this FE I R should not be certified until the requested analyses are provided. Sincerely, Non9f � n�resi�� cc. Mr. Sarjit S. Dhaliwal, Associate Planner 3 1 Tarin Audubon Society P.O. BOX S99 1 MILL VALLEY, CA 94942-0599 I MARINAUDUBON.ORG September 28, 2009 VIA FAX AND US MAIL Planning Commission City, of San Rafael 1400 5" Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901 RE: COMMENTS ON FINAL EIR FOR TARGET STORE ATT: SarjitDhaliwal Dear Commissioners: The Marin Audubon Society appreciates your consideration of e Target store proposed for the San Rafael Bayfront. We apprecia Draft EIR and also staffs providing information for our review. below. BIO - l WILDLIFE CORRIDORS & SPECIAL STATUS A reminder that Salt Marsh harvest -MI refuge on this site during -times of high project harvest mouse survey in BIO 7. The wildlife corridor is described as a "lands�aped,l the buffer plantings should be to create habitat sdita predators, foraging and possibly nesting habit. Tts area. Plants should be planted in clumps and iii hg>i Maintenance should be designed to remove mva* dispersal, not to keep the ground clear of plants. 1! remain remain between shrubs, unlike urban landscaped are areas between plants. The habitat maintenance plan until the shrubs grow to two to five feet, and should rate be low. on Shrubs, grasses and forbes native to Marin County and that grow most of the species on the plant list (page 11-8) are suitable, we_r deleted from the list. These are: flannel bush, holly leaf chexry; on page 11-6 states that trees would be planted. It rs or[r und6iIstt due to possible compromising of the landfill bap "by tree root, BUFFER The buffer should be a uniform 100 feet. The dirt ac than impervious materials, to remain a road it would A Chapter of the National Audubon Society COMMUI CITY nems on tI soonsesto RECEIVED PP 3 0 hnno FIR for the estions on the nal'EIR are -1ould take :nt for a pie - ilii" is better an, which is hof compatible with the purpose of the buffer. Therefore, any animals crossing it would be more vulnerable to predation from avian and ground predators. Maintenance vehicles should use the parking loot to drive on, and a fencing should include a gate for access to the buffer area. The buffer along the southeast should be widened. Wearepleased fencing has been included as a measure to mitigate project impacts. Additional information is needed about openings in the fencing. Openings would be needed to allow movement of wildlife from the MMWD/City-owned pond to the wetlands to the north. How would this area be designed to permanently assure there are adequate openings to allow wildlife access from the pond to the south and north? New BIO -11 This new mitigation addresses fencing and also requires "pedestrian/bicycle points of access to the Shoreline Trail (with exact location and configuration to be determined by the City). This is an entirely newcomponentthat has not been evaluated in the EIR as to potential impacts on the buffer habitat and wildlife use of the buffers. How would such access areas be designed to ensure wildlife movement while at the same time preventing access to the buffer? How many such access points would be provided? What would be their impacts and potential measures to mitigate these impacts? Frankly, we are not clear how an access trail through the buffer could be provided without impact to the buffer and consequently to wildlife using this habitat corridor. Decision on this matter should not be left to be made by the city later outside of the CEQA process. The EIR consultants should recommend locations and measures to ensure people will not be able to access the buffer but that the wildlife can get through. It is our recommendation that pedestrian/bicycle access through the buffer not be provided in this location, but if it is, only one access be provided as long as the design protects the habitat. We do not support having no fence along the Starkweather trail. A fence of the sort that exists along other sections, post and cable, that allows wildlife to move under and through. The fence, adjacent to the project parkinglot should be solid or chain link to prevent access by people. BIO 8 This mitigation, that is designed to reduce the impact of feral predators (cats etc.), should be strengthened to require that no food and food container waste be placed in metal, animal -proofed container, not simply that the containers be provided. REDUCED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE Our request for a reduced project was rejected with an explanation that "An EIR does not need to consider every conceivable alternative ...... and that the car dealership and hotel/restaurant would have "...potentially lower impact use for the site." We are aware that an EIR does not have to consider every conceivable alternative. We were not asking for every conceivable alternative to be analyzed. It is not clear that the two alternatives mentioned would have reduced impacts. We still recommend that a project with a reduced footprint and Thank you for considering our comments. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING — CITY COUNCIL You are invited to attend the City Council hearing on the following proposed project: PROJECT: 125 Shoreline Parkway— Target Store Final Environmental Impact Report —The City of San Rafael City Council will conduct a public hearing to consider the certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for Target Store. On September 29, 2009, the Planning Commission recommended certification of the FEIR. The subject site is located northerly of Shoreline Parkway cul-de-sac within the Shoreline Center development; APN: 009-320-45; Planned Development (PD)1726 District; Cal -Pox, Inc., property owner; Robert Wright ofTWM Architects and Planners, applicant; File Nola).: ED07-038; GPA07-004; ZC07-002; UP07-018 Pursuant to the State of California Public Resources Code and the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 as amended to date, this is to advise you that the Department of Community Development of the City of San Rafael has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) on the Target Store project. MEETING DATE/TIME/LOCATION: Monday, October 19, 2009, 8:00 p.m. City Council Chambers, 1400 Fifth Ave at D St, San Rafael, CA FOR MORE INFORMATION: Contact Sarjit Dhaliwal, Project Planner at (415) 485-3397 or sarjit.dhaliwal@cityofsanrafael.org. You can also come to the Planning Division office, located in City Hall, 1400 Fifth Avenue, to look at the file for the proposed project. The office is open from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., weekdays. You can also view the staff report after 5:00 p.m. on the Friday before the meeting at http://www. cityofsanrafael. org/Govern m ent/City_Clerk/City_Cou nci l_Redevelopm ent_Agency_Ag end as. htm. WHAT WILL HAPPEN: You can comment on the project. The City Council will consider all public testimony and decide whether to approve or deny the application. IF YOU CANNOT ATTEND: You can send a letter to the Community Development Department, Planning Division, City of San Rafael, P. O. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915-1560. You can also hand deliver it prior to the meeting. At the above time and place, all letters received will be noted and all interested parties will be heard. If you challenge in court the matter described above, you maybe limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered at, or prior to, the above referenced public hearing (Government Code Section 65009 (b) (2)). Judicial review of an administrative decision of the City Council must be filed with the Court not later than the 90" day following the date of the Council's decision. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6) Sign Language and interpretation and assistive listening devices may be requested by calling (415) 485-3085 (voice) or (415) 485-3198 (TDD) at least 72 hours in advance. Copies of documents are available in accessible formats upon request. Public transportation to City Hall is available through Golden Gate Transit, Line 22 or 23. Para -transit is available by calling Whistlestop Wheels at (415) 454-0964. To allow individuals with environmental illness or multiple chemical sensitivity to attend the meeting/hearing, individuals are requested to refrain from wearing scented products. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING — CITY COUNCIL You are invited to attend the City Council hearing on the following proposed project: PROJECT: 125 Shoreline Parkway— Targe'S'ore Final Environmental Impact Report —The City of San Rafael City Council will conduct a public hearing to consider the certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for Target Store. On September 29, 2009, the Planning Commission recommended certification of the FEIR. The subject site is located northerly of Shoreline Parkway cul-de-sac within the Shoreline Center development; APN: 009-320-45; Planned Development (PD) 1726 District; Cal -Pox, Inc., property owner; RobertWright of TWM Architects and Planners, applicant; File. N0(s).: EDo7-038; GPAO7-004; ZC07-002; UP07-018 Pursuant to the State of California Public Resources Code and the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 as amended to date, this is to advise you that the Department of Community Development of the City of San Rafael has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) on the Target Store project. MEETING DATE/TIME/LOCATION: Monday, October 19, 2009, 8:00 p.m. City Council Chambers, 1400 Fifth Ave at D St, San Rafael, CA FOR MORE INFORMATION: Contact Sarjit Dhaliwal, Project Planner at (415) 485-3397 or sarjit.dhaliwal@cityofsanrafael.org. You can also come to the Planning Division office, located in City Hall, 1400 Fifth Avenue, to look at the file for the proposed project. The office is open from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., weekdays. You can also view the staff report after 5:00 p.m. on the Friday before the meeting at http://www. cityofsanrafael.org/Govern menUCity_Clerk/City_Council_Redevelopment_ Agency_Agendas.htm. WHAT WILL HAPPEN: You can comment on the project. The City Council will consider all public testimony and decide whether to approve or deny the application. IF YOU CANNOT ATTEND: You can send a letter to the Community Development Department, Planning Division, City of San Rafael, P. O. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915-1560. You can also hand deliver it prior to the meeting. At the above time and place, all letters received will be noted and all interested parties will he heard. If you challenge in court the matter described above, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered at, or prior to, the above referenced public hearing (Government Code Section 65009 (b) (2)). Judicial review of an administrative decision of the City Council must be filed with the Court not later than the 90" day following the dale of the Council's decision. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6) Sign Language and interpretation and assistive listening df (415) 485-3198 (TDD) at least 72 hours in advance. Copies of documents are available in accessible formats upon reque Public transportation to City Hall is available through Golds 'ng Whistlestop Wheels at (415) 454-0964. To allow individuals with environmental illness or multiple c ATTACHMENT 7 are requested to refrain from wearing scented products. CITY OF Mayer Albert,3_ Boro Council Members Greg Brockbank Damon Connofty Barbara Heller Cyt N. MidPer COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PLANNING DIVISION: (415)485-3184 Date: September 11, 2009 To: Public Agencies, Organizations, Interested Parties and Property Owners From: Planning Division Subject: NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR); SCH# 2007082125 Pursuant to the State of California Public Resources Code and the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 as amended to date, this is to advise you that the Department of Community Development of the City of San Rafael has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) on the following project: Project Name: Target Retail Store Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) Location: 125 Shoreline Parkway, San Rafael, CA 94901, Marin County, California; north of the cul-de-sac at the northerly end of Shoreline Parkway; APN: 009-320-45. Property Description and Background: The approximately 19.42 -acre site is Lot 6 of the Shoreline Center and is located at the northerly end of Shoreline Parkway in the East San Rafael area. The site is generally level. A portion of the site contains temporary vehicle storage for Sonnen BMW. The site consists of a closed landfill historically known as San Quentin landfill. The landfill was closed and capped in the late 1980s. In 1993, the City Council approved the Shoreline Center Business Park Master Plan. As part of this project approval, the City Council adopted a Planned Development (PD 1651) District reclassifying the Business Park property from Light Industrial/Office (LI/0) District. The PD 1651 allows light industrial uses; research and development; professional, administrative and general offices; retail sales of home improvement goods and supplies (limited to Lots 1 through 4); other specialty retail uses (limited to Lots 1 through 4); motor vehicle sales and service; warehousing, storage and distribution; ancillary employee serving restaurants and service businesses; and contractor storage yards. Since 1993 the PD District zoning has been amended (current zoning is PD 1726). Project Description: In May 2007, planning applications were filed for the construction of a 137,424 square -foot Target Store, a general merchandise retail department store that would serve San Rafael and the surrounding region. The proposed store would occupy the northerly portion of the site with parking for 550 vehicles provided primarily in front of the store. Landscape screening within the parking lot and along the north, east and west property lines is proposed. The project includes the following planning applications: 1) an amendment to the City of San Rafael General Plan 2020 description of Light Industrial/Office in Exhibit 11- Land Use Categories and Policy NH 59 to allow a region -serving specialty retail use on Parcel 6 of the Shoreline Center; 2) an amendment to the existing Shoreline Center Master Plan (PD 1726) to allow Community Development Department — Planning Division 1400 Fifth Avenue, P.O. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 Phone: (415) 485-3085 • Facsimile: (415) 485-3184 Notice of Availability — FEIR Page 2 of 2 Target store - 125 Shoreline Parkway, San Rafael September 11, 2009 a region -serving specialty retail use on the Parcel 6; 3) a Use Permit; and 4) an Environmental and Design Review Permit. In early 2009, Target requested that this project be put on hold due to the current depressed economy. However, the property owner requested that the City proceed with completing and certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). 2008 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) Review Process: In September 2008, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was prepared and published for public review. A 45 -day public review period was observed and the San Rafael Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 28, 2008 to accept comments on the document. The City received many comments on the DEIR, requiring detailed responses and additional research by the City's environmental consultants. Completion and Availability of a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR): Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15088 and 15089, the City has responded to all comments were submitted on the DEIR and a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been completed. The FEIR consists of three volumes: ➢ One volume containing all responses to comments that were submitted to the City in writing or presented orally at the October 28, 2008 Planning Commission hearing ➢ One volume containing the DEIR text with edits reflecting responses to comments ➢ One volume containing DEIR appendices (technical studies and reports). A computer disc(s) (CD) containing the FEIR (all three volumes) is being forwarded with this notice to those agencies organizations and persons that submitted written comments on the DEIR For other recipients of this notice, CD's and hard copies of the FEIR are available for review at the following locations: • City of San Rafael Department of Community Development, 1400 Fifth Avenue, San Rafael • San Rafael Library, 1100 E Street, San Rafael The FEIR is also available for review on the City of San Rafael website at: A limited number of loaner copies of the FEIR are available at the Department of Community Development on a first -come -first -serve basis. City Review and Action on the FEIR: The Planning Commission will review the FEIR at the following public hearing: MEETING DATE/TIME/LOCATION: Tuesday, September 29,2009,7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers, 1400 Fifth Ave at D St, San Rafael, CA The role of the Planning Commission is to review the FEIR and make a recommendation to the City Council as to whether the document should be certified, revised or rejected. Following Planning Commission review, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the FEIR, which is tentatively scheduled for October 19, 2009. A separate notice will be sent to confirm the City Council hearing schedule. The FEIR review would not involve action on planning applications or merits of the project. If and when Target initiates the review process, hearings will be conducted and FEIR will be used as environmental documentation for environmental clearance. Should you have any questions, please contact Sarjit Dhaiiwal, project planner (phone 415-485-3397) or send an e-mail to Sarjit.dhaliwal@cityofsanrafael.org. Community Development Department — Planning Division 1400 Fifth Avenue, P.O. Box 151560, San Rafael, CA 94915-1560 Phone: (415) 485-3085 • Facsimile: (415) 485-3184 Cotrol Map - 125 Shoreline Parkway rR' N SCALE 1 :13,804 1,00000 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 FEET Tuesday, September 29, 2009 9:52 AM LO Lo M r O r r r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnornrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrn �rnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrn a N w U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U O J J J J J J J J U U U W W W W W W J w w w W W LL LL LL LL LL 0 LL LL qq q1_FH000LL QLL m W a)QLL m dQ a) � LL q LL q LL d aL mLL d U)U1� �w�9wwwQwwww�w w w 0' ww w�LL'wwwgLL' >- z)::)::) Z Z Z Z C Z Z C C C Z G Z Z C C C Z C C G G C C C C z G C C C Z C J k�#Yk Yk kxt iJ it: Yk k Q Q Q U) 0 J U) J J � J �� z O m CO m m m m m m C) m m m m m m LLL LU > m a a a a m 0 a 0 o o o o o o o o U) o o o o� o LU w w> >>> > >>>— 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0— 0 0 0 0 U o 2cc2mC�Ifmmm t0 w❑o7 F)o]U 0 w 0 0 0 0 Lb C) w2 Lo y W Q m p p w0 W W w Z C) C C c) C C o Z C C C o ii o LL LL LL pLL Q pQ w Q C z c T w c 0 a m @ m@ m m m o L m V)ZZZ LL LLLL11 LLLLLl LL LL LL LL LL U- LL W LL W N W W N N N� N w— N N N LU Q Q Q p p Y p Y Y Y Y Y Y Q Y Y= Y Y Y w W w W w W W w W W W w w w U W K F- F- H Q Q Q ❑ U)(1) U) m m o m oo O O o oLL o O LO Lo Ln Ln o LO Ln Ln M o Lo LO Lf) LO LoLn Ln ZLo O O O O W N M N (O (O I- M M M N O) O) O) W O) O) d) O N O O O LO Q i- < Q O O co i '" ± O O O O) O) W M O) O) LO W O O) LO V d' d' d' d' V 't tO LO Lo Lo Lo Lo N Lo M a M (`M M N N N r N N r N N N r r r r r r r r r r .- r r r r r J Q F- W U (D °6 L U) c ~ E N N U) N U 06it N -� O p❑O ow'K a) LL F -a @ 0 O KU 0_ZY -0 Cw7 C) may ~ Il ) F06 0 0)- O co co 00 U<) �zZ ���2 a 06 0 Mz } g 4)p o� o >>- }} w w w w E 0 0 o m m O o❑ Z xf 3 .� °) m aEi o p o 0o U U) 03 Q QQQLQL tQi_LQi. LL02 o�-'U �F-� a0i}❑ o o a3i Zm E an�UC) rn c -E Lu O2� mw a)��❑ LVJO o 0 oY,� @ 0 0 0 o W Q Q Q E Q G o z Y F z m E o o@ O o U X Y as a Q E Z Z Z Z Z Z Z D p Z �j O j C O N E mJ- QQQQQQQQ.,..F-I- @t -Q oQw @ @�J o c o `@ o o ioJ06 @.� o0r ZUUUm U) U) U) U) U) U) LL w U) UU) ww000 LL=>2 co UUp:2PUzQ p N N N N N N M � r 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 O O r — —� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NN N N w r r N N M M CO M M CO M M M M M M M M M M M M M CO M M M M M M CO O O O O O O r 0 OO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LL O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O d' V V O 01 O O O d) O) [A W 01 CA O W 01 O d) O) O d) CA d) O CA � 01 Cn d) W O 01 O CA CA O O O d) U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U W J J J J J J J J} J J W W W W W W W W W O W W mm mmmmmQQQmQmmmQmQmmmQmmQ-�l- QmmmmmQ O (�6 w m v@- ( � LL LL LL LL m m L- � LL 9 L2 @ Vim- LL J li @ @ @ @ @ �- F @ @ Z ( K @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Q F N N N N N Qd'd' W d'K W'Ka' d'd'a' d' Kd'w' w'K w Of a' Of > C c W C C C C C Z Z Z C Z C c c z C Z C C C Z C c z J�> z C C c c C z O@@@@ m m m Q Q Q m Q@ m m Q m Q@ m m Q m@ Q- Q O Q@ m m m m Q Z�n�nU' �nu�t4c�(�u�(�cocqu�vJu�u�cnu�tnu�tq(gv�cgc�u��v�Zv�u�(ncnv�tqu� LL 3k (k J J LL U 'a a 'O O 'O m m a 'O "O 'O "6 LL LL US Q>> >>>>>OO QFw2mF>I->>>� -a } mtt1zmm07mmUUUxkU xk It �k U) m U)mm CO() N Q >- i- 0 o f 0 0 0 0 000 0 -° -p -° 0 0 o O � Q Q W 0 0 0 0 0 U 0 - - W > _ > > > = U = U 0 0 = '0 "O >. >, �-"� �Q'cNi�llam�mmm� �� �'cNiK10M 0) z�����z wmm�mmmmm�`)=1)0(D=m=mmm0a`)mwrnONQcccccQ L- LL LL W LL LL LL LL LL LL LL Q i O � LL O w LL w O J LO LL— U m m m m m U U U U U U W W W W W W W W W Y U Y Y Y U W U W W W U Y Y Q O Q O W a) a) N N m W Cl) O¢ W r W N N m M- M LO M LO N tIJ co N 1U co m� m 0 0 O O O LL Q. V LO �U CD LO LC)�O LO m LO U01 0) 0) m m LO'tm �t 't ".r u 0)(3) o0 4')0000=, Z O a O (n J U_ Y J U) m w W m C O 0 } Z U F K @ J w ° a w J O W O J aLL� o"��O p2 ��S 2 �-0 2 O w0 c� W O mQ 0 >}}G z.NO'�z2z E N z W ONCJ 0 mm U) E3L 0' O G a)0 O0 --W iE O W i W o@ m W O�cncnZ w LL Q.� @�Q°t5 @ ° m ozzQof w � JNLL m J c JOO 00 Y nOK�QmQ c >°) Q) 0 00 W �- 02 m0 mm0OLL� `�= p N `m La 3 U p> c Z �Ym0� mxf�wFF�.mzO a)-�z a)z -a)L a)zU a�icwzQLu w > m E �Z Q 0 a)_ o c�ooz o ° o)Q `QQs 0 ��Z w o NZ `o �w J n� m o m 0 O J J Q c� 0 3> K� K o o a LL Z ac) Q Q Q Q o O SIJ- m Q LLmmLL(7 (fid U) I-- U U U) Q LL 0- co LL U) mOm2iUm QOY LL>> N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O M M M M M M M M M M M M M M co M M M M M M M M M M M M V tO Q) p) p) p) N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O) } t m) d) m) m) m m) W W r D) d1 m) m m) D) m) O m) m) 't D) d) t D) m) dW m) m) m) Q) m) m) O � W W V d' d' 7 7 V' V V V d' 7. q' d' d' 7 d' V V 7 V V V V d' V V V V V 7 V' V 7 V rn��rnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrn ¢aaaQaaaaaaaaQaaaaQQaaaa¢QQaaQaQa¢aaa UVUUUUUUc.�c..�c.>000UUUUUUUUUUUUc.�UUUUUUUUUU O Lliw J J Q J J— Q J LU w J J J J J LL LL N N N O LL LL wK K N (�06 �N J LL'2 1 LL O O U- '21'T'T 0 � LU w w N U 6 6 N O W 0 a 6 f N F 6 LL 6 LL LL KKK w¢ LL >K2ww2OT 12 �K ¢Ka a I-0 I - I- ¢ O Q m m m m O Q Q Q Q¢ Q Q W m m m m m m w m Q m m Q O m O Q m w m w w O a' Q J #LL _ W 0 W' LL' 0' � V > m C C cc W W W F- W F- W Qo-o o.o o >>>m>W> ZWaaaa-- aQaza�-Q coco -1 Z j W N _N _N N a' I~L I-- L~I.. O L~l L~L m) Z Y U' C 7 U` U O LL LL LL LL a LL X O U O O O O� O OO L 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 000 m NN (p � �' It O N n �04 * � # -O "a -O a W > > > > > > > in m m m (D Q=> m m 0 0 0 0 U¢41,} Lli-m ¢ O W o W W 10000 c C C C�� O Z ¢ cm m O Z U W O W W O LL LL LL LL m M M U N (6 ~ C •N- U a' L K a' O W W W W U U U U J U U LL X O X J LL LL LL O Y O w w o w o o mti�u�Lmn.a7tada-a0mocc m< nQa M N N N O(o0mmmmMwnNvO�OU)LO LO 2 N N N= a N a, = m) W m) J F- ¢ Z Z C w Q Q C Q n E W W J U W J W p) .2- C > J Z (0 F' Fw, J C } W .o .L O Z Oa I- Z Z LO Il U �= U O NYO �� w W U }} > C aU O -U W e c K N E U ~ m¢� m ZI}-I-I}- }}}mUJ �, m.oF `m US c }a U)d- O -Fa Q ODUUmCJUU� �' c m- U>U"- � a`)0 (6JaJJ �zw OU U0.'f mJJ 1Z J J Ja a) �(� O mei 20O� a) J Z mZJO-a OQQ W > a C U W W WOW W W� a� 0, U U O J` c W co J CO Z a) a a s Z�Z� tiaQ¢QUaQ¢O x o U mcu) �� oQ>m> U>>m (Qj m�xS�� �, W LL LL LL w LLL 4LL LL= LU=� U O w O) a' D f6 LL 3: U> U J— J J Z Z a N N C a) m L.0 LLLU -FilO (n 'CLU O r-� Q w J ¢aLuY'Uw a)O¢Q¢QQ¢Q� aOi o c `m m a)N-mQ m m��m>o-omLL LL LL 0 00 m o al >�u�UwKF f v�0wzwmm¢LLLL F ()U��00�mmam (�O�OO N N N N N N N N N N N N M <h M M �c"�i c7 (h M C? M M M th C? L? L?(p I� 0 0 0 O O O O) Q) W O m O d1 O O) O) W O Q) d) O W d) O D) m Q) m W W O W O Q) d) O W O O O O O N N N N N N N 1V N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000 d' O O N 000 q' OO d' N O (000 0 0 0 0 0 W O) d) d) O) O T O) O O) O) d) W d) 6] d) O d) D) O d) a1 d) W D) t W O M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O d) OJ d) D7 O O) W d) O OJ O) O D) d) D) lA d) d) W O 01 Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q lL m J} J J W J W J } -j :E J J J J J J J p p p p p W W W W W W W W J W W W W W W W W W W W W LLJLLLLLw �LL�OLL 75- -j NLL (oLLCo cu m mQQQQmm LLLLLLLLLL Q w (uZk- �QO¢Z"- "- v-F-v�- �u' zzLQL LL LL L¢L @ f -t -I -I -I -K J�K jK� W Q�K��KQZcu cu �cu �KKKCCKcu w KK Z Z Z Z Z Z J Z Z J C Z W> Z C J m Z Z C Z C Z C J C C Z C C Z Z Z Z C C W W W W W Q-QQ W wQ�OQ N-mQQ (6Q (6Q (6 F- (6 c6Q (6 (6 QQQQ (6 @ YYYYY co U) U) m U) (1) C7 Z(n co F-(n(�(n N _ (0 co W H co U)' _ 0 N p co N W > TM > F- it J Yk J Yk O_ O } }} } ¢wwwww Qm 2'M LL O2 LOp�O�* xo-jmomo�*Y ��* �YYYY�� Q Q Q Q Q Q Z IL ca ED O> N _O W 0) 0�� CO LL vo 0 O w �3, N Y Y W Y �5, w W w W O O LU Z Z Z Z LL Z LL O Z<} C U p Q Z C) � Z W U Z U Of N M N N Z N N J J J J U U 00000 LL�� W' �ZO<� I6 d'��I- N� Np cO C Cw �Z W W.W W C C d' w O.' w K Z J J LL ISYS Lwu L= LL LL U L LL I� LL LL LL L O X O O O O O O O O O LL LL 00000<ULLSS W LLJQ W W dW mw W wp-OO�LS�.CSS22 W W Q Q Q Q Q N N N W Ln M N N� N N N N N m U m U1 M M M 0� O O Q7 W W N N W It LO m N O LO LO ((00 LM) N Lo tN * O r M M M M M M M M O W r r r �- N V 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO ~ U zui J J Q C US w F W W N w U J J w' W S J a 3:Q u U ° w w z�C�-9� �QaLu Q o co w -�O O Q cr c ww mzc)� 0)<:E �zF-ou =� �} U) E zz �����}�=wzZ<MOD- �> W zo 0Z MUSS >.E 2S .o a a a d a J z a Z¢ E F z F O W M O LL O m J o E O N O a n_ o 0E< �}z()w E0�_� mS 5¢ 00' 0LLI Q)Uz U (oZH�Zw� OJ O O O O w w m� 0 O U E Y O H O O w 0 a W) LL Q 0 m O x Q X0 W w p O m I=L L=L I=I L=L L=L. gz QZ0 NO W'�twil '��J LLQ C LL mZ (D2OQ�Ll 0a zza C 00000 Q J S W W Q Q w Q J K Q m '� Q o 0 m Q m 6 Q Q Q Q a O JJJJJmpQ02¢22m :20 w0 0-C70-L)SOLLdOSLO 999999- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M M '? M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M Cl) M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M W m W m m m O m m 0) d) D) m W m C l m m O 61 O) d) 01 m d1 01 d) d) m W 4) O 01 8) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 z O O o (00 0 0 0 0 0 0 o rn v o o o m o o N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o v o o o o m m m m m m O O m m m m m O m m O) N m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m V V V 7 V 7 V V V V d' N d' � d' V V N V d' It d' 7 't V d' d' V V 't m m m m m m m m m m m m m^ m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m V d' It d m m m m U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U O W W' W W W J W W W W W W W W W W W LLQaaaL a)LLQLa U-QU)LLL LLLLQLL LL LLLLNd LLL LLLLQLLQ(D m N Nw N (o cuLL Z Z o Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z C w Z Z Z c C c c c c c C c Z C C Z C> C c C C <<}0U U< U<u7U O mJu7 (nUUU U(�c/JUUU cnUU OZ UU N m O o Q p C/)V > N N m O m 'O N a) W 't a) OU � � a L co U) a) a (n > U m 0 -o a) o a a a) @ o a) o o m ° o _ U> a`) a m > c C> `) � K? coc c> ac) c o % > d ZL�I- @' m >— M �aN� 0 oi00 "o @0o >y Qm >.-o 0 a) cnL ` L rp O c (D N Lo a) a) M >: L0 L U 0) .-. (/! WLL 0 C@ N N L o C X Y C X X C L X L E L O (D .� c L Co L a N m -C -O L m o J U LL LL EL o °) 0 0 0 o a) 0> 0 0 E o m-� o im°= m o o) � D :c W Np�N(ONoomC�mJ�mmmJ �m 0U)co d�2ro mo`o_LLcnmQo(7i- u)m r�Mooc)NO 000mmmodt omoov om000vOomo� CO 0 M m 0) N (O d 0 Ln LL d r V d Lo r a m m N U) U M m m Lo d V m M >d ¢ a) U) a) 2 c > C U) w a c c o v o E E @ o N N a) o O U > U O a) '� U ) 'C Q. LN a) a d O O U G O Y a s L7 N a) v @ d m i O O E O C 7 L N C 0 a) O m U c Q O a D � N E L p N= O O > 6 L m O. a c of Q L -o m u, E J L 'a � L -a � a o o 0 K 0 c 0 o a� o O U' a) 0 m` 0) c Q@ ca n 0 0 :4 c° 00 '� a a) 0 � VmO =U mN @ >> m cSc aO 0 U Q)-0 dL 0'm�Q n¢EQ a'CiLQ a ca �_ LL wO E a) aOL @ O 00 QKmO00 0��aO�� @ m W j @ 0 o0 cn E° 2 c U) L 2 2 2 2 E@ N 2= > o a 3> c a E -) c E o Y in � J u U m E c Z o o o o Q �- (7 C'J d -0 a o T U a 2 S L W U N O" Co U a) a) 'O C@ L U �`0) 0 X N O J J J J@ OU OU U U U 3 (� m m a) @ 0 0 N@ N@ dN 2@@ C@ m G L L L L C m d 0 0 0 a) O a) Q. C N L O@ L a) 0 0@@@@@ 0@ 0 0 0 0 0@ 0 0 a) a) a) V O O N@ d .� a) @ (n �Ci(n->J CD m m m m 0 0 0 LL LL (D a d a a a a c u) u) >W � O N M m O O �-- 0 O) d) CP m d) O O W O) O) O) CA W CA d) CA CA CA m W O O CA D) O d) O) O) O) [n d) O O CA d) W It d) O CA CA O) O O D) O 0) O) O) CA O d) OCA d) O) 0) O W O D) O O d) D) m d) D) 0) CA m m d) CA UUUUUUUUUUUUUU UUUUUCiUUUUf..)UUUUUUUUUUU Q Q o U o U d a a m m a m m m E m y a m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ > @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ N N (�6 N (�6 N N N N N C c N N N N N N N rn N �- N, w w �.- v- co mv- �- � v- v- N Ka�'aaaaaaKcu m Q oa�'aKKK (U �_ mQ jaaaaK ma KKaaa KK C C C C C C C C C C C O C C C C C C> 'cu > C_ C C C C @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ r2 @ @ @ @ @ @ O @ O @ - @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ (nUU(nU(n(n(n(n(nUF-(n(n(nUwU)z2z020U)(nUULL n nUJU n � n n a rn a 0(� t! 2 @ k o -o d > a Do` zam o >, a) >a U) m °ten o > m o O U m m a vM v a � 0 C> O L 0 0 m> 0 U r a) o o Q 12 2 �- m ?U) E r @ c o U rn m p_ c m` c a .c ii ��- aoi o Y Y o o o m a° .-�� T c o m o °aa02 Q m N OCDQ "MM a) _ @mm�� 3m�0"ommQ m(nm �m W Q) lfJ O O O O Q N N O (D J m >> (.D O O O I,- O r N M O M O (O CO M I V (O V' W> m � LO I-- O m N V M LOO 0) 0, ((o M r d' V m N r M W r N N co cO d m N N m N N N m r N 0 N �- 5 0 M > M a) ° = O Z U a) ° Y N to E a) O Q o U c _ Y o z U N o c N o c-�° N Y 0)@ O O M � a) C) X O c c @ C a) (6 @ a U a) ° Oi ° @ O N @ m K m U t ° aa) Q E .� `m 06m a) ao° E @ O O Y (n m O N w LL O c LL o Qo U 0 2 o' a T m ti C C C a @ ..L, C Q@ a° ° o 2 a m Q aS m U E(01� wc _ L (� N -0 DW o c m @ Z, i Q w o o m m o O m a) @ E a o Low a@ate° q)U) ca° Nis a m 2mc �� o� m X� a o ° L U E o -) Z@ m m o a) Lu ° a) U a) m .� m F- o U o) ~— m E "a 2° c J w° o N J U 3 3 >°° E U° a@° a 0 0@ Lc -o Y o S o DLL o�C7a�Y�p0 VO O 2(n�adm u (L)i () c (0 >,V U @2 y N 2i U C >. O Y- > C aC• _w �_ ..C. Y > > mS0u0,Lu 2i QQ�m�� Q Q QQ� 2LL� 2KOY� a' W 2F UI-KU� 3 S E @ a r _ 0000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000000 Q) Q) Q) Q) aaaaas¢¢aaaaaaaaaaaaa¢¢aaaaaa¢aa¢a¢a¢ J W N¢ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 4 C Z C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C G C C C C C C G C C C G C C C C C C } \ C¢% i i 'GC CCCCCC C G C GQ C OOO C C OO O O G C C C C O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TJ O O O aCL aa. °a aT�TO>.Ta aQ a�a�aaTQTTa @ w m a M M @ >@@@@@@@@@ m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m LOO @@ m m m m m m m m m O O O O l N N N N O W M W N CO O d' d' W N <O O It of m m m f .�- N N O O d' co N (O O r c- LO O) N in = to O O O r W r W N OJ Cl) V N N N M M M V V = = � r — � = N N N N N N N N N N F - w ?>W COT Z 2 T� N ¢ = J L N W 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 -J�00000000000000000000000000000000000 O) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N COO M N O N 0) 0) 0) 0) aaaQasa¢aQQaaa¢¢¢Q¢QaQaa¢aaaaa¢QQaQaa c.�UUUUUc.>Uc.>UUUUUUUc.�000UUUUc.>UUUUUUUUc.�UUU J J J J w J N N N N N N N N N@ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NN N LL U- LL ILL LL m N N N N N N N N N N m N N N N N N N N m N N m N N N N� m W Q Q Q Q m Ya Q O (nt/JUJ Uto �cn cq u7 cq��U��UUUU���cn v�u�u�cn u�v�cn u�cn(n0 COO O 4_ U O U- N O Co O � m 3 U a n Y n � > d O N m N m C O Co > L Monaco 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M > U 0 Q C C C C G C C C C C C C C C G C C G C C G C C_ 0 0 C m � Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 G C C- `- W '� Q C '¢O W O W a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a o'o'o o'o X O m a a a a a O O L (n m Z J M m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m >, >. >, >, >, `m s= w mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm m m m m m m m m m m m m mmUULL O(9 CC-¢ Z VoD N (D O d' of N M W LO I� 0 (O O M O to m m m m m U d' V (O M (O (O (O h O m m m V N O O f� r r O CO (O M lf) W M O o h r Q p O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N r r r r N M M M d' d am= O) U Cn r N N N C N h- � U a FY N mc 0) (D baa m c0Ow U m O Z F Q aim Ew,0'Q >� J 0 (D J < J Y> dC Q a O F >, O Q mY-Mo .3 cUZz 0000000000000000000000000000 ¢C U) w m (U 0n 0 LD Q v EWw m J Q O DZC7 UA eD CO CO d c- 0 0 d0' d' N -It V 7 UA @ UA o 0) m U U U U U U O U � J LuLLIJ �ZLLLL Y o°�9� > Z Z Z Z Q o Q Q Q Q J Z 0 Un 0 Un o w o j W W U) ~ D F- D Z W > W Unco0 Q Ye < C) �UD¢� Wr O N= 0 Q 0 I LLQ x 7 J Z U C O V U 0 U K v o0 Zoe t UY D UL Y UL U 0 Q Z O U - Un co F- U ¢ Z � � Q U� Z J Z F O OU r-) U — J O Y } F Z O 0 0 ¢ , U 2�>0Ury Un U U Ung}U J 2i Z O K Z mO�Lu 2 U � U) LL U V O Q = Q w U =a=rr