Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 2010-12-20SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/20/2010 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL. MONDAY, DECEMBER 20. 2010 AT 8:00 P.M. Regular Meeting: San Rafael City Council Also Present: Jim Schutz, Interim City Manager Robert F. Epstein, City Attorney Esther C. Beirne, City Clerk Members of the public may speak on Agenda items. OPEN SESSION — COUNCIL CHAMBERS — 7:00 PM None. CLOSED SESSION — CONFERENCE ROOM 201 — 7:00 PM None. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS OF AN URGENCY NATURE: Present: Albert J. Boro, Mayor Damon Connolly, Vice -Mayor Greg Brockbank, Councilmember Barbara Heller, Councilmember Marc Levine, Councilmember Absent: None 8:02 PM Canal Neighborhood: - File 9-1 Jim Geraahtv, Canal resident, on behalf of the film crew, invited the City Council to attend a film made by members of the Marin Immigrants' Rights Coalition to be shown in the Canal Area in February, 2011. From making the film it was learned that globalization was the main cause for people having to leave their homes and families and travel north to seek work. To help support Canal residents, he urged the City Council to support the Dream Act, to stop the 30 -day impounds of cars and to lobby elected officials in Sacramento to allow these people to obtain drivers' licenses. Marin Square: - File 9-1 Having visited the Marin Square shopping center recently, Barry Taranto reported that many of the businesses were vacant and did not display `for lease' signs, and he urged the City Council to take an active interest in this issue. Illegal Siqnaqe: - File 9-1 David Maver stated it was his understanding that "waving" signs were illegal in the City of San Rafael; however, he observed such signs on Freitas Parkway today. He would like to see more done about these plus those placed on Thursdays and Fridays at the Smith Ranch Road exit. Councilmember Brockbank moved and Councilmember Levine seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar as follows: CONSENT CALENDAR: RECOMMENDED ACTION: ALL MATTERS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE TO BE APPROVAL OF THE FOLLOWING ACTION: APPROVED BY ONE MOTION, UNLESS SEPARATE ACTION IS REQUIRED ON A PARTICULAR ITEM: Resolution Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Enter RESOLUTION NO. 13080 Into a Two -Year Agreement with Emanuels Jones & RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE INTERIM Associates for Legislative Advocacy Services in an CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A TWO - Amount not to Exceed $34,600 in 2011 and $36,300 in YEAR AGREEMENT WITH EMANUELS 2012 (CM) — File 4-3-354 x 113 x 9-3-11 JONES & ASSOCIATES FOR LEGISLATIVE Any records relating to an agenda item, received by a majority or more of the Council less than 72 hours before the meeting, shall be available for inspection in the City Clerk's Office, Room 209, 1400 Fifth Avenue, and placed with other agenda -related materials on the table in front of the Council Chamber prior to the meeting. American Sign Language interpreters and assistive listening devices may be requested by calling (415) 485-3198 (TDD) or (415) 485- 3064 (voice) at least 72 hours in advance. Copies of documents are available in accessible formats upon request. Public transportation is available through Golden Gate Transit, Line 22 or 23. Paratransit 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. CC 12-20-2010 Resolution Authorizing Interim City Manager to Enter Into a Sole Source Agreement with Granicus, Inc. for an Integrated Video Archive System and Related Services (MS) — File 4-2-355 x 9-3-88 3. Resolution Authorizing Interim City Manager to Enter Into an Agreement with Ikon Office Solutions for a new Print Shop Copier (MS) — File 2-9-29 x 9-3-88 Approve Suspension of Towing for Street Sweeping in the Canal Neighborhood (MS) — File 9-3-87 x 9-3-40 5. Resolution to Modify the Job Specification for Volunteer Program Coordinator to Include Expanded Job Responsibilities and Increase the Salary range to the Equivalent of the Program Coordinator (MS) — File 235 x 7-4 Monthly Investment Report for Month Ending November, 2010 (Fin) — File 8-18 x 8-9 7. Resolution Approving Use of State Cops Program Supplemental Services Funds in the Amount of $100,000 for Community Oriented Policing (PD) — File 9-3-30 8. Report on Bid Opening and Resolution Awarding Contract for the Lifeline Transportation Program, Canal Street Pedestrian Access and Safety Improvements City Project No. 11122, to Able General Engineering, Inc. in the Amount of $258,324.48 (Bid Opening held on 12/15/2010) (PW) — File 4-1-625 9. Accept Completion of the Dominican / Black Canyon Neighborhood Landscape Project, Project No. 11059, and Authorize the City Clerk to File the Notice of Completion (PW) — File 4-1-609 10. Accept Completion of the 5 Fair Drive Retaining Wall Replacement Project, Project # 11160, and Authorize the City Clerk to File the Notice of Completion (PW) — File 4-1-621 ADVOCACY SERVICES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $34,600 IN 2011 AND $36,300 IN 2012 RESOLUTION NO. 13081 RESOLUTION TO WAIVE FORMAL BIDDING AND TO AUTHORIZE THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A SOLE -SOURCE AGREEMENT WITH GRANICUS, INC., FOR AN INTEGRATED VIDEO ARCHIVE SYSTEM AND RELATED SERVICES RESOLUTION NO. 13082 RESOLUTION TO WAIVE FORMAL BIDDING AND TO AUTHORIZE THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS, INC., FOR A NEW PRINT SHOP COPIER Approved staff recommendation. RESOLUTION NO. 13083 RESOLUTION TO MODIFY THE JOB SPECIFICATION FOR VOLUNTEER PROGRAM COORDINATOR TO INCLUDE EXPANDED JOB RESPONSIBILITIES, AND INCREASE THE SALARY RANGE TO THE EQUIVALENT OF THE PROGRAM COORDINATOR Accepted Monthly Investment Report for month ending November, 2010, as presented. RESOLUTION NO. 13084 RESOLUTION APPROVING USE OF STATE COPS PROGRAM SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICES FUNDS DURING 2010/2011 IN THE AMOUNT OF $100,000 FOR COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING RESOLUTION NO. 13085 RESOLUTION AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE LIFELINE TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM, CANAL STREET PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS, CITY PROJECT NO. 11122, TO ABLE GENERAL ENGINEERING, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $258,324.48 Approved staff recommendation. Approved staff recommendation. CC 12-20-2010 11. Accept Completion of the 60 Hillside Avenue Retaining Wall Improvements Project, City Project #11147, and Authorize the City Clerk to File the Notice of Completion (PW) — File 4-1-620 12. Resolution Accepting a Proposal from CSW/ Stuber- Stroeh Engineering Group (CSW/ST2) for the Design of Rossi Pump Station Reconstruction and Authorizing the Public Works Director to Enter into a Professional Services Agreement with CSW/ST2 for an Amount not to Exceed $119,963.00 for Preparation of 100% Plans, Specifications and Cost Estimate and for an Estimated Maximum Amount of $58,200.00 for Construction Support Services and Environmental Document Preparation (PW) — File 4-3-515 13. Resolution Approving the Allocation of an Amount not to Exceed Two Hundred and Ten Thousand Dollars ($210,000) for the Purchase of a Below Market Rate Housing Unit and Making Findings and Approvals Pursuant to the California Redevelopment Law in Connection with the Utilization of Agency Low and Moderate Income Housing Funds Outside the Central San Rafael Redevelopment Project Area (APN 175-441- 08) (RA) — File 229 x (SRRA) R-173 x R-103 14. Resolution Approving the Allocation of an Amount not to Exceed Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000) for the Purchase of a Below Market Rate Housing Unit and Making Findings and Approvals Pursuant to the California Redevelopment Law in Connection with the Utilization of Agency Low and Moderate Income Housing Funds Outside the Central San Rafael Redevelopment Project Area (APN 180-491- 11) (RA) — File 229 x (SRRA) R-173 x R-103 15. Acceptance of Redevelopment Agency Annual Report, Including Blight Progress, Agency Owned Property, Loan Compliance, AB 987 (RA) — File 8-18 x 8-9 x (SRRA) R-62 Approved staff recommendation. RESOLUTION NO. 13086 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A PROPOSAL FROM CSW/ STUBER-STROEH ENGINEERING GROUP (CSW/ST2) FOR THE DESIGN OF ROSSI PUMP STATION RECONSTRUCTION AND AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CSW/ST2 FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $119,963.00 FOR PREPARATION OF 100% PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND COST ESTIMATE PLUS AN ESTIMATED MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF $58,200.00 FOR CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT SERVICES AND PREPARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS RESOLUTION NO. 13087 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ALLOCATION OF AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED TWO HUNDRED AND TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($210,000) FOR THE PURCHASE OF A BELOW MARKET RATE HOUSING UNIT AND MAKING FINDINGS AND APPROVALS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA REDEVELOPMENT LAW IN CONNECTION WITH THE UTILIZATION OF AGENCY LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING FUNDS OUTSIDE THE CENTRAL SAN RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA (A.P.N. 175-441-08) RESOLUTION NO. 13088 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ALLOCATION OF AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($250,000) FOR THE PURCHASE OF A BELOW MARKET RATE HOUSING UNIT AND MAKING FINDINGS AND APPROVALS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA REDEVELOPMENT LAW IN CONNECTION WITH THE UTILIZATION OF AGENCY LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING FUNDS OUTSIDE THE CENTRAL SAN RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA (A.P.N. 180-491-11) Accepted Reports. CC 12-20-2010 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Brockbank, Connolly, Heller, Levine & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None OTHER AGENDA ITEMS: 16. PROJECT: TARGET STORE (125 SHORELINE PARKWAY) — REQUEST FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, ENVIRONMENTAL AND DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT AND MINOR SUBDIVISION TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW, 137,511 -SQ. FT. TARGET STORE WITH 553 SURFACE PARKING SPACES AND ASSOCIATED SITE AND LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS ON A 19.42+ ACRE SITE. THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD BE LOCATED ON 15.82+ ACRES OF THE PARCEL WITH A LANDSCAPE EASEMENT AND A VEHICLE STORAGE LOT LOCATED ON 3.60+ ACRES AT ITS SOUTHWEST CORNER. 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-PDX, INC., PROPERTY OWNER: JOHN DEWES OF TARGET, APPLICANT: FILE NO(S).: ED07-038: GPA07-004: ZC07-002; UP07-018 AND S10- 003 — FILE 10-2 x 10-3 x 10-5 x 10-7 x 115(2020) — Target Continued from Citv Council meetinq of December 6, 2010 City Attorney Robert Epstein explained this was a continued hearing of the Target application which began at the meeting of December 6, 2010. At that meeting the City Council received public testimony from more than 60 individual speakers and a substantial volume of written materials was also received. At the conclusion of the December 6 meeting it was announced that the public hearing was being closed for purposes of receiving public testimony and written communications. He explained that this schedule was designed so that at tonight's meeting the City Council could hear responses to the public testimony from both City staff and the applicant and begin deliberation. Mr. Epstein stated that for purposes of this public hearing, the receipt of written materials was closed on December 6, 2010; therefore, any e-mails or letters received from the public after that date should not be considered by the City Council in its decision-making. Similarly, he stated that public comment tonight should be limited to any questions regarding the latest staff report. Mr. Epstein recommended that Mayor Boro declare the public hearing re -opened tonight for the express, limited purposes of hearing the supplemental staff report, receiving any questions on the staff report from the City Council and the public, and subsequently hearing any concluding comments from Target before beginning deliberations. Mayor Boro declared the public hearing re -opened for the limited purposes outlined by Mr. Epstein. He explained that public comments would be limited to two minutes per speaker. Comments should be confined to the staff report or questions not yet answered. Planning Manager Paul Jensen stated that public testimony was received from over 60 people at the December 6, 2010 City Council meeting, some of which included questions and comments that required a response not only from City staff, but from the Environmental Consultant. Several letters and e-mails were received containing very specific and detailed comments, specifically on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and other related issues which warranted response. Consequently, the staff report listed 35 comments and questions to which staff had provided responses. Mr. Jensen explained that the responses were segregated into five areas: economic, traffic, environmental, public safety and general comments and clarifications -- staff would report on some of these comments and responses: • Traffic, Environmental and Public Safety — Paul Jensen, Planning Manager; • Environmental Issues specifically related to greenhouse gas emission comments and General Plan (2020) — Bob Brown, Community Development Director; and • Economic Issues — Nancy Mackle, Economic Development Director Public Works Director, Nader Mansourian and the environmental consultant team could expand on any responses provided. Mr. Jensen explained a concern was that the traffic analysis prepared for the project relied only on the Target store in Albany and that this approach was contrary to the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Handbook — ITE Handbook — which recommends that three data comparisons be considered. 4 CC 12-20-2010 Mr. Jensen stated City Traffic Engineer Nader Mansourian reported that collecting data comparisons from three sources was not a mandate by the manual, rather more of a common practice. The traffic study was based on trip generation from the Target store in Albany and it was determined that this single store would provide the best source of traffic data. Mr. Mansourian also considered other sources, including the Target store traffic study that was prepared for a facility in Fairfield sharing a parking lot with Home Depot, and also the ITE handbook standard trip generation rates for what was considered a free-standing discount store. After review, in his professional opinion, Mr. Mansourian concluded that the data from the Albany store provided the best and most accurate information for assessing this Target store project. With regard to traffic queuing, Mr. Jensen reported a comment stated that the project EIR failed to acknowledge the significance of traffic queuing impacts and was, therefore, deficient. He reported that traffic queuing was assessed in details in the project EIR and, in fact, Mr. Mansourian conservatively assessed traffic queuing along the Bellam Boulevard corridor where at the same time an intersection analysis was completed; therefore, in essence, this supplemented the intersection analysis. This approach was over and above what is typically required under environmental guidelines and what is mandated by City policy. With regard to the comment that food and grocery sales were not factored into the traffic analysis prepared for the EIR, Mr. Jensen stated that as reported by Mr. Mansourian, the study of the Albany store was completed at a time when food merchandise was included in the mix of general merchandise; however, Target had grown and expanded food sales since that time. Staff completed several site visits to the Albany store to observe customer patterns for purchases and found very few shoppers purchasing groceries solely and because of this staff assessed traffic for a grocery store use within the Target store space to confirm the conclusions of the traffic study prepared for the EIR. Mr. Jensen reported that staff assessed an independent, full-service grocery store facility occupying approximately 18% of the store sharing space with Target and it was concluded that there would be a net increase of approximately 50 pm peak hour trips, with no changes to the assumptions and conclusions reached for intersection delays and arterial speeds along the Bellam intersection. Regarding environmental issues, Mr. Jensen stated one of the comments was that the project alternatives prepared for the EIR did not present a reasonable range. Those selected included a hotel and restaurant and a car dealership, which had been claimed to not meet the objectives of the project. He reported that the alternatives were studied as they were land uses, among others, that were previously considered for development on this site. They were considered to be potentially feasible, which was consistent with the provisions of CEQA that permitted the City to evaluate alternatives going beyond the basic objectives of the project. Regarding wetlands set -backs and fill, Mr. Jensen stated concern was expressed that shifting the building north by 28 feet and slightly east toward the Bay would compromise the wetland buffer. He explained that wetlands existed north of the site on the Canalways property, with the Bay to the east of the site. Mr. Jensen reported that this issue was addressed in detail in the EIR Addendum — Wetlands Research Associates, a local biologist, reviewed the plan and confirmed that the wetlands set -back would not be compromised with the change in the building location. This finding was reported in the EIR Addendum. Indicating a further concern related to this was the fact that a fill bank was proposed behind the Target store interfacing with the wetlands set back. Specifically in one of the drawings the slope bank for this fill was very steep, making it very challenging to plant and maintain. He indicated it was found however, that the diagram shown was schematic and there were other cross sections within the plan set that accurately depicted a much gentler 3:1 slope suitable for planting and maintenance, and these plans had been corrected. Regarding the requirement to make Findings of Overriding Considerations because of a significant and unavoidable impact, Mr. Jensen noted a comment was made that in the past ten years this was the only non- residential project for which the City was required to make such findings. Indicating at this was in part true, he explained that since 1998 three non-residential projects required Findings of Overriding Considerations — San Rafael Corporate Center, Dominican University Masterplan and amendments to Level of Service standards in the General Plan for Third and Union Streets intersection — in total since 1998, six projects were approved that required such overrides. Mr. Jensen reported that a comment on landfill noted that the Shoreline Center was an unregulated dump site. He explained the Center encompassed the former San Quentin landfill which closed in 1987 and required the approval of the California Integrated Waste Management Board, Regional Water Quality Control Board and the County of Marin Environmental Services. Of interest was the fact that the closure of this CC 12-20-2010 landfill did not result in any land use restrictions. Post -monitoring requirements for the landfill include quarterly reporting of groundwater sampling and over 20 mitigation measures in the Target EIR are required to ensure that the landfill closure requirements were respected. Regarding the comment that the EIR did not assess public safety impacts, particularly resulting from an increase in traffic along the Bellam Boulevard corridor, Mr. Jensen explained that the EIR did assess public services and determined that police and fire services and response time for this corridor would not be impacted by the projected increase in traffic. In addition, reports were received from Public Works, Fire and Police indicating that during the twelve months in which Caltrans was working along Bellam Boulevard, lane closures did not impact the ability to access the area for emergencies. Regarding comments concerning the intent of General Plan 2020 as it related to this property, Mr. Brown, Community Development Director, reported that the Steering Committee, in their deliberations almost seven years ago, focused on this parcel and viewed it as the City's last economic development opportunity site - the expectation was that there would be some type of a big box use ultimately developed at this site. Mr. Brown explained that the Steering Committee approved a program in the General Plan for this specific site which stated: "as part of a development application, consider land use changes to the Cal -Pox site to allow for development." Noting some incorrect interpretations regarding the Light Industrial/Office General Plan designations for this site and others in the area, Mr. Brown noted comments that the proposed retail use undermines the Light Industrial/Office designation of the site; however, he explained that Light Industrial/Office currently allows auto sales and specialty retail, which explained why car dealers and Home Depot were located in the same Center. With regard to an incorrect interpretation concerning the Economic Development element, Mr. Brown stated that one of the major objectives of General Plan 2020 was that the City should retain its industrially -zoned land, since San Rafael provides the great majority of industrial sites in the entire County, and industrial uses were needed to create a diverse, commercial economic sector. Specifically, in the City's industrial districts, the types of uses under discussion included auto body shops, machine shops, cabinet makers, contractors' yards, etc., all industrially -zoned sites, whereas this site was Light Industrial/Office — essentially an office district. Regarding the claim that the proposed General Plan amendment could apply to multiple Light Industrial/Office sites of more than ten acres in size the potential CEQA impacts of which had not been adequately analyzed, Mr. Brown explained that there was a detailed analysis by Mr. Jensen in the December 6, 2010 staff report indicating there were five sites zoned Light Industrial/Office of over ten acres. Review of these demonstrated they all had either recent development, such as Home Depot, split ownership or other environment difficulties that would limit the application of this fairly modest General Plan amendment to this particular site. Sustainability questions — With regard to greenhouse gas emissions calculations, Mr. Brown reported that the state of the art in calculating greenhouse gas emissions had evolved a great deal in the last four years; however, the draft and final EIRs used the best available methodology at the time in their analyses. He explained that this year CEQA was modified to address greenhouse gas emissions and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) adopted criteria and protocols for how to do those analyses; however, they exempted projects with environmental review under way, such as Target. While there was no legal requirement to redo the greenhouse gas calculation, since this was an important issue for the City Council and public, consultants redid the greenhouse gas analysis using the new methodologies, for informational purposes only. Mr. Brown confirmed that there was no legal inconsistency between the final EIR or the need to re -circulate the final EIR. Stating the staff report contained six pages of detailed technical and legal responses to the greenhouse gas emission data, Mr. Brown explained that the computer modeling to determine a project's greenhouse gas emissions includes inputs for mitigating measures that would reduce emissions compared to a "business as usual" type of development. In this case, some of the features in Target, such as the LEED Gold building, rooftop solar panels, electric vehicle charging stations, proximity to transit all constitute mitigating factors that were factored in to reduce the expected greenhouse gas emissions. Even the presence of on-site amenities, such as food service in Target, could slightly reduce the expected greenhouse gas emissions. All categories contained ranges of reductions; therefore, some subjectivity on the consultant's part was necessary in CC 12-20-2010 performing these calculations Referring to a letter received by Mark Wolfe which questioned several reduction calculations, Mr. Brown stated the consultants reviewed the calculations again and prepared modifications, which were attached to the staff report; however, overall, the project continues to meet the 28% approximate reduction requested by AB 32 from "business as usual" development. Addressing the effects of sea level rise on the project site, Mr. Brown explained that the property was approximately 20 -feet in elevation; therefore, it would not be inundated even under the worst-case scenarios. It was stated, however, that construction should not take place on what could eventually become an island in the Bay. Mr. Brown stated that virtually all of East San Rafael and a good portion of the downtown would potentially be inundated with a three-foot sea level rise, which exposed billions of dollars in land value and infrastructure to being under water, and the City would not allow this to happen. Currently, the focus was on greenhouse gas emission reductions; however, cities in conjunction with BCDC, would in the next couple of years develop plans to learn how to deal with the shoreline frontage. Mr. Brown noted that there were billions of dollars worth of land and improvements along shorelines which cities would not simply abandon as sea level rise occurred — physical means would be necessary to protect these properties. Even though this site would not become inundated, it also would not become an island in the Bay. Noting eight questions addressed in the staff report, Nancy Mackle, Economic Development Director, indicated she would address three — net sales tax, community impact and fiscal impact reports and retail wages - and should there be questions on others, she or the consultants in attendance could provide answers. Sales Tax — Target's $45 million sales estimate multiplied by 1.5% sales tax equaled $675,000 - estimate of income to the City of San Rafael. Ms. Mackle stated staff was comfortable with Target's analysis of $45 million because the independent consultant's Urban Decay Analysis estimate was $41 million. Net Sales Tax was a little more difficult to estimate because of competition; however, the Urban Decay Analysis concluded that overall, projected retail demand would be greater than supply; therefore no sustained negative impact on other retailers was anticipated. Fiscal Impact Report — Not completed for this project because of revenue exceeding cost. Ms. Mackle explained that a Fiscal Impact Report is typically generated with residential developments that have a lot of calls for service. The EIR's assessment of public services and utilities found them to be adequate to serve the project because the area was already covered by Police and Fire services, etc. Community Impact Report — Ms. Mackle reported that from the processing side these had not been required of applicants in the past. Such a report exceeded the legal requirement of CEQA and in fact, issues studied in a Community Impact Report had been studied in the EIR. The EIR looked at retail sales analysis, trends, per capita sales, demand and supply and what the new project would bring, and staff did not consider that any additional retail analysis would provide any further information. Ms. Mackle reported that Robert Eyler, Marin Economic Forum, had indicated this was done at a very aggregate level and did not get to the level of which stores would be impacted by new competition. She noted affordable housing is evaluated in community impact reports; however, San Rafael already has a non-residential affordable housing impact fee for all commercial development. Ms. Mackle reported staff had found from discussions with economists, etc., that there could not be definitive reports on wages as this was proprietary information. She and her staff had attempted to obtain this information by calling retailers, researching online, applying for jobs, etc., and found it difficult to obtain the information for local retailers. Ms. Mackle reported that the Marin Workforce Investment Board stated that retail wages in Marin, depending on the store, benefits offered, level of position, prior experience, etc., ranged from $8 - $12 per hour, $13 - $16 for clothing stores, $18 - $20 for auto sales and $22 - $25 per hour for high- end retailers. From the Community Impact Reports she had looked at Ms. Mackle reported they also were quite speculative on wages and indicated it was difficult to obtain that information. With regard to Mr. Brown's statement that the City would not allow land to be inundated by a sea level change, Councilmember Brockbank requested clarification on whether levees would be built to ensure the sea would not inundate these lands. Mr. Brown clarified that his response concerned protecting properties and infrastructure. Thanking staff for the report, Councilmember Connolly stated he remained interested in exploring the idea CC 12-20-2010 that the food/supermarket piece of the proposal represented a new business model for Target. He indicated that the concerns raised regarding the food element related to increased generation of traffic. Secondly, he questioned how realistic the projected sales tax revenue was when a large segment of the store was non -tax generating, and he inquired whether discussions had taken place with Target regarding the idea of either eliminating the food/supermarket piece of the project or in some way, limiting it in size or scope. Regarding the taxable piece, Ms. Mackle reported having clarified with Target that their definition of "grocery" included food and also non-food items which were taxable - 10% grocery was not the same as 10% non- taxable. Regarding eliminating or limiting the food element, Ms. Mackle explained that generally staff did not get involved in what was inside the buildings, provided it was less than 25%. Mayor Boro inquired as to how traffic related to the grocery component. Nader Mansourian, Public Works Director, reported that a "what if' scenario assuming 10% of the store was a full-service supermarket was tested for additional traffic impacts and it was concluded that 50 pm trips would be added with very little difference at intersections. He stated that unlike Target, a full-service grocery store, such as Safeway, would generate approximately four times the amount of traffic. Referring to Page 8 — first bullet point of the staff report, Mayor Boro inquired as to how the trips were allocated. Explaining that approximately 8% of the Albany store sold grocery items Mr. Mansourian stated that when a 10% full-service supermarket was added and shoppers' carts were monitored for types of purchases, staff concluded that the supermarket and Target store trips were shared; therefore, 50% was a conservative approach. Councilmember Connolly requested clarification on a statement in correspondence received to the effect that "the proposed mitigations will not reduce the store's greenhouse gas emissions to a level below current significant threshold for such developments." Concluding that it does, Mr. Brown explained that AB 32 requested a 28% reduction in greenhouse gasses compared to `business as usual' and this was the benchmark used. Computer software methodology was evaluated in terms of reductions for the various components of the project, its location, etc. Staff believed it was within the AB 32 range required. Councilmember Connolly stated the addendum to the EIR had a statistic that anticipated bicycle and pedestrian penetration as part of the project at approximately 9% of trips and he inquired as to how ambitious this was. Personally, Mr. Brown stated he anticipated at least that. Target talked about the likelihood that their employment would be from within a two-mile radius — 85% of employees typically live within two miles. Looking at the radius, he anticipated the Shoreline bike path would be used to travel to the site, and there was very good bike access to this parcel from what would likely be the major labor source in San Rafael. Regarding the Alternative Use Analysis, Councilmember Connolly inquired whether consideration was given to modeling an actual Light/Industrial use. Responding negatively, Mr. Jensen explained other uses were considered in the past, some of which were already consistent with the zoning in the General Plan, that were considered better uses for the site. Mr. Brown added that he did not believe there was a market for that type of use, noting the real estate community indicated there was at least a ten-year supply of vacant office and Light/Industrial space; therefore, of all uses, he considered this to be the least likely to be built on this site in the near term. Regarding the fact that a Community Impact Report had not been done before, Councilmember Connolly stated he viewed this project as different in type, scope and size from any confronted in San Rafael previously and he believed such reports had been done in other jurisdictions when either a Target or Wal- Mart was proposed. Ms. Mackle stated she believed some had been done although she was unaware of frequency. Councilmember Connolly inquired as to the impacts when a large Target, with the new business model, came CC 12-20-2010 to town. He stated San Rafael's specific task was to evaluate the identified community benefits, i.e., the real sales tax figure, net gain and loss to jobs, what type of jobs would be created, etc., and he questioned whether a Community Impact Report, to some extent, could better answer those questions. Ms. Mackle explained that a Community Impact Report typically would look at what was happening in this community. Noting actual wage levels would not be obtained, Councilmember Connolly suggested that perhaps what was happening in similarly situated jurisdictions could be obtained. Ms. Mackle stated the Community Impact Reports she had seen were specific to a community or store coming in and what it might do in terms of retail for the trade area. She believed Councilmember Connolly's suggestion was to look at different cities in the Bay Area similar to San Rafael to ascertain how such a store impacted the community. Ms. Mackle stated she had a list of communities somewhat similar to San Rafael that had Target stores and still had lively economic communities. Mr. Brown added that staff had provided the City Council with an Internet link to the closest and most proximate Community Impact Study which was done for Petaluma for their Target store. The report indicated that they could not calculate the net sales tax that would result from that project as data was not sufficiently statistically accurate. Mayor Boro suggested that subsequent to hearing from the public and Target, the consultant could comment on what additional information, if any, might be gained from a Community Impact Study. Councilmember Levine stated that one of the issues of concern to a lot of people was the traffic impacts on the neighborhood. The information he had read discussed the Level of Service amendment at Third and Union Streets, as well as the Level of Service at a number of intersections or streets throughout San Rafael at Level D or E, and he requested some background on how that level of service at those intersections may have become acceptable. Mr. Mansourian explained that for Third and Union Streets, staff suggested Level of Service E because the operation of the intersection was being changed. A pedestrian safety improvement would cause more delay for the motorist; however, was safer for the pedestrian — this was discussed extensively at Planning Commission and City Council meetings. Explaining that the level of service was basically the tolerance level of the motorist, Mr. Mansourian stated City staff sets the level of service policy at D, E or F as appropriate, based on average delay per vehicle entering the intersection. He noted Bellam and Kerner Boulevards reached a level of service that exceeded Level of Service D because volumes increased at some approaches to the intersection before analyzing the Target store in the am peak. The Target store impact with additional vehicles changed the Level of Service to E; however, the delay was tolerable. Mr. Brown recalled that during the Loch Lomond hearings there was great public concern about what would happen at Third and Union Streets with the changes in the intersection referenced by Mr. Mansourian; however, since the changes were made approximately two years ago he had not heard anything but positive feedback from the public that these changes had made the intersection significantly safer, albeit possibly a little slower. Regarding the safety steps and improvements for pedestrians on Bellam Boulevard, Councilmember Levine inquired whether this was more of an issue south of the Kerner intersection or whether it was both south and north of the intersection. Mr. Mansourian explained that it was right at the intersection the way Bellam and Kerner currently operate. Traffic volume was such that it was necessary to separate northbound and southbound and this type of operation causes more of a delay at the intersection. Concerning the roundabout that would be maintained by Target, Councilmember Levine inquired whether it was in perpetuity or by ownership of the parcel, and how it would be maintained beyond the foreseeable future when they take on that responsibility. Mr. Jensen explained that it would still be retained as City -owned public right-of-way. Maintenance would be done through a license agreement and/or an encroachment permit over time that was either term based or in this case, in perpetuity. CC 12-20-2010 Should the land parcel pass from Target to another owner, Councilmember Levine inquired whether the agreement would end or be passed on to the new owner of the parcel. Mr. Jensen stated that encroachment permits run with the land; therefore, should property ownership change, the new owner would inherit the terms of an encroachment permit. Mr. Mansourian confirmed that there could be a licensing agreement which could be passed on to the next owner. Mayor Boro invited public comment on the staff report to which staff would subsequently respond Roaer Roberts, Marin Conservation League, stated he was confused regarding the greenhouse gas emissions issue. He indicated it was clear to him in reading the Addendum to the EIR that the project would have significant increased net greenhouse gas impacts on the community. Noting the staff report indicated this was for informational purposes only he questioned whether this information could be ignored in the decision-making process this evening relative to allowing Target to proceed or not.. Alan Barnett, Mill Valley, stated he found it difficult to believe that with minimum -wage standards in the County, State and the Country, Target could not be asked to divulge its wages. Should the average wage be approximately $10 per hour - $20,000 income annually — the 200 Target employees would take home approximately $4 million, which added to the $600,000 the City would accrue in sales tax meant the City, community and government would receive 10% of the annual returns - $45 million Target sales. He inquired whether the City Council or staff had considered the fact that 90% of Target's annual returns would leave San Rafael. Matt, stated he was a frequent visitor to the Enterprise Resource Center at the intersection of Kerner and Bellam Boulevards. Reporting that traffic becomes heavy around 5:00 p.m., he expressed the hope that further discussions on the traffic issue at this intersection would take place. He believed the greenhouse gas emissions issue should be looked into further also. Bill Daniels, United Markets, stated that on average he pays his employees $28 per hour with medical insurance and pension. Mayor Boro stated the question raised was "what did Target pay" and the answer was that it was proprietary, and should Mr. Daniels have a question on this it could be addressed by the City Attorney. Mr. Daniels stated that retailers would provide information on union rates. Mayor Boro stated that an answer could be requested in discussing a Community Impact Study and he requested the City Attorney at the appropriate time to comment on the issue of proprietary. Mr. Daniels reported that United Markets employs full-time employees, most of whom had been with the company for twenty or thirty years. United Markets donates $150,000 to Marin County schools through the schools scrip program and donates an additional $90,000 to non-profit groups, charities, churches and Marin County schools for their special functions. Additionally, they invest $50,000 in advertising to help promote Marin County affairs through an ongoing advertisement testimonial program with the Marin Independent Journal. He stated that United Markets also advertises to assist in getting the word out on carry out bags to help promote special events throughout the County of Marin at a cost of $40,000. Averaging $330,000 annually of giving proves that the community is extremely important and critical to United Market's business plan and they believe in reinvesting in the community to make Marin County a superior place to live and work. Andv Bacich, Andy's Market, stated he installed a state of the art bicycle rack and got about a .001 % usage. He believed drugs sold in the pharmacy department of Target were non-taxable, which was a large percentage of sales, and from everything he had read, groceries were aiming for 25-28% of Target's sales. Regarding traffic, Steve Burdo, referring to staff's comments that a very low percentage of people would be buying groceries only, inquired whether staff evaluated people just buying groceries or people buying groceries and other items. With regard to sales tax and community impact, he inquired whether in looking at Novato and Petaluma they were asked what Target projected as their sales tax revenues and what they actually received in the years after the store was built. Clavton Smith stated it appeared that sales tax revenues in Marin County were a zero-sum gain and he 10 CC 12-20-2010 believed that with this store sales tax revenues would be taken from other businesses in San Rafael, and businesses in the adjoining communities of San Anselmo, Corte Madera, Novato, Mill Valley, etc., and he believed this issue should be addressed. Living in Mill Valley and frequently shopping at Home Depot, Mr. Smith stated he uses the Sir Francis Drake exit and the 1-580 freeway and this issue should also be addressed as part of the traffic study. Mr. Smith stated that every person living locally who loses employment at stores such as United Market or other local retailer would inevitably work for lower wages and benefits and less secure income and he believed this sociological issue had not been addressed and was a severe point of absence. David Quinlev, representing the North Bay Green Party inquired as to the seismic issues on building on an old dump site and whether studies were conducted on the Home Depot store. Norman Solomon, Marin Co -Chair, Commission On A Green New Deal for the North Bay, referring to the section on the Green New Deal report submitted in October, 2010 on healthcare, inquired as to why the EIR and subsequent staff report did not address the dynamic and reality of the often part-time workers at Target who do not receive health coverage. He inquired as to the implications both human and financial for those workers, specifically the burden on the County of Marin and/or San Rafael. Frank McLean stated he had sent the City Councilmembers an e-mail on December 6, 2010 with a link to an article regarding shipping pollution, noting each large container ship emits pollution equivalent to 50 million cars per year. As Target's model was to produce products and import them by ship, Mr. McLean inquired whether consideration had been given to the amount of pollution generated in the creation of those products to be offered in the store. Mr. McLean commented that purchasing these goods meant supporting governments that do not have any free speech rights. Georae Mills, San Rafael, referring to the question of the hairpin turn in the staff report stated he did not see a real answer. Level of Service was again discussed; however, LOS does not address the hazard and what could be done to prevent it. David Maver, San Rafael, on the question of zoning, stated he supported Light Industrial and would like to see green jobs. He inquired whether the State of California Employment Development Department — Labor Market Information - was contacted regarding wages. He indicated he did not rely on the statistic that it would take ten years to lease this space. Regarding staff's comment that Target would allocate 10% of the store to groceries, Paul Roaers stated that everything he read indicated that when they switch over to being a grocery store in addition to retail, 20% - 25% of the store would be allocated to grocery sales, and he inquired whether studies had been done on what this would do to traffic. Mr. Rogers also inquired whether the free parking spaces at Target would affect City parking fee and fine revenue. Regarding sea level rise, Bill Carnev, Sustainable San Rafael, stated the staff report indicated that cities around the Bay were working with BCDC to take steps to mitigate those impacts and he questioned what types of steps were anticipated. Given the best cure was prevention he inquired as to why consideration was not given to making it a Condition of Approval that operation of these properties achieve, over a reasonable period of time, a zero carbon and greenhouse gas emission standard — 32 businesses on Fourth Street had already taken that pledge and he inquired whether Target would follow suit. Mr. Carney inquired whether 1,100 metric tons of CO2 equivalent was the correct threshold standard. In reading the staff report he noted Target had gone from approximately 6,000 down to approximately 2,000 — double the threshold standard. Brad Flahertv, San Rafael, stated he did not understand why the City would provide a place for people to park away from downtown. Aesthetically, he inquired whether the City Council was aware that many people were still appalled by Best Buy looking like a billboard in a County despising billboards and how Target would change the nature of the City. Jonathan Frieman, Keep It Local San Rafael, recalled that one of the studies in his recent PowerPoint presentation showed that whenever a big -box superstore came to town, one and a half jobs were lost for every one gained. A further interesting study from the Bay Area Economic Forum showed that of the 116 cities which admitted a big -box superstore, only two found an appreciable bump in sales tax — a failure rate of more than 98%. Noting many academic studies were carried out all over the nation in many different 11 CC 12-20-2010 economic climates, Mr. Frieman inquired why the Planning Department did not explore any of these studies in depth and whether they were purposely pursuing economic disaster. Alexander Bennick. indicating he was convinced a Community Impact Study was essential, and noting Target promised increased jobs and tax revenues, inquired whether the same seductive false promises were made elsewhere by Wal-Mart and by industries seeking approval of their incinerator, toxic dump or polluting factory. He stated a study was needed that looked not only at the economics but also the social impacts. He commented that by the time a new Target store began operation, the existing local economy could already have significantly recovered; however, the long-term economic unsustainability such a store could cause would be with San Rafael for many years to come. Mr. Bennick reported that a major study conducted by an independent think-tank concluded: "Prior studies have confirmed that to varying degrees, locally owned businesses generate as much as two to three times the local economic activity as do chains." He stated that income generated by existing local businesses, including Jackson's Hardware and United Market, tended to stay in a local area, sustaining employment and generating further sales tax revenue. By contrast, net income from a Target store would leave the state; therefore, for all these reasons he believed a Community Impact Study was necessary. Sierra Salen stated the City Council's policy should be about taking care of local employees, residents and the County as well as the natural state of the land. Noting Target would take money from the community he stated that big -box retailers did not build or add to a community. With the energy and pollution that went into creating and shipping, living environments were being traded for lifeless products that were not even repairable. He suggested policy which supports local economies and builds local communities as bigger and bigger made for a pretty ugly and homogenized mess with little choice or resilience and was more of a race to the bottom. Mr. Salen stated that local interests could create businesses to serve the local community and make a profit, which would remain in the community. Max Perez, Marin Sierra Club, stated they had a number of concerns and questions regarding the fact that the store was being built on landfill which generated methane gasses. He inquired whether the City had looked at studies of peer cities where big -box retail had been built on landfills and its effect on the environment and employees' and customers' health. Judv Schriebman commented that the question she raised at the previous meeting concerning Target dumping toxic and hazardous waste at their 240 stores in California in the regular garbage as opposed to in the Solid and Hazardous Waste program had not been answered. She inquired whether San Rafael would have any leverage with this corporation that saw nothing wrong with flouting the laws of the state over a period of five years and how staff planned to address this issue. Lois Tucker, stated she would like to see a movement to live local, eat local and buy local — a livable community. David Randolph, President, MUTA (Marin United Taxpayers Association) and Co -Chair, Marin Coalition, stated that many members were concerned about the manufacturing conditions of the low-priced items sold at Target. He inquired whether Target had shared with staff any of the working and living conditions of these factory workers. He stated that America needed to stop purchasing cheap goods that depleted the health and lives of those in other countries. Mr. Randolph suggested this was a great opportunity for San Rafael to stop fostering the inhuman conditions of these manufacturing companies. Phil Tucker, California Healthy Communities Network -Tide Center, San Francisco, stated that the information being sought was the amount of taxable and non-taxable items to be sold in the 137,000 square -foot store. With 109 stores having over a year of experience with non-taxable food sales, he inquired as to why this information was not available, together with information on non-taxable prescription drug sales which were integrated into the general merchandise category. He believed a lot needed to be explained, including questions concerning wages, benefits, etc., information on which was readily available from a number of sources. Joseph Brook stated there were business leaders who were willing to divulge wages paid to employees and he questioned whether similar information was not forthcoming from Target. He inquired why a study had not been carried out regarding the true tax revenue. Having a relative managing the produce division of a Target store in Southern California, Mr. Brook reported it represented 35% of the profit of their store and utilized 9% of the store's square -footage. He questioned why Target was not being transparent about actual revenue. 12 CC 12-20-2010 Herb Moran inquired whether: In the period, January 1, 2000 to January 1, 2010, the City Council had approved a Finding of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for a non-residential project; In the history of the San Rafael City Council whether a Statement of Overriding Considerations had ever been granted to a national retail chain; and Based on documents created by the Redevelopment Agency which specified that Target was intended to be an anchor store, should a Statement of Overriding Consideration be granted, whether this meant open season for other retailers to enter the area and whether the intent was to create another shopping mall in East San Rafael. Kevin Keatinq'inquired whether in either of the two reports consideration had been given to how many trips currently went to Novato from Southern Marin and how much extra revenue would come from people visiting restaurants in San Rafael which previously went to other cities. Tom Wilson, Canal Alliance, stated that should the project be approved he hoped there was a way to require or negotiate with Target to provide some direct benefit to the Canal community, either through a type of fund set up as a percentage of profit or through a direct improvement to parks, schools, Marin Community Clinic, eventual refurbishing of Pickleweed Park — some type of direct investment in the Canal community that would bear the greatest impact of the project. There being no further comment from the audience, Mayor Boro closed the public hearing. Mayor Boro paused the City Council meeting at 9:40 p.m. Resuming at 10:14 p.m., Mayor Boro stated staff had had an opportunity to review questions and comments and would provide answers. Interim City Manager Jim Schutz stated that, while staff wanted to provide full responses to questions, many of the answers were included in the staff report, EIR or other documents; therefore, in some instances in the interests of time, these documents would be referred to with staff providing a summary answer. Environmental Issues — Kristi Wheeler, RBF Consulting, stated that the questions concerning impacts associated with seismic and geotechnical issues, building on a landfill as well as hazardous materials were addressed at length in the certified Final EIR. In addition, the Addendum EIR summarized a number of different recent reports regarding hazardous materials. Mayor Boro stated it was important to provide a brief summary of what was in the report, especially with respect to toxics, what was being done elsewhere and how the City could address the issue. Ms. Wheeler explained that that question related to whether Target had been dumping hazardous materials into the landfills, which would be addressed by Target. Eddie Torres, RBF Consulting, stated that he had prepared the Greenhouse Gas Analysis. With regard to the comment on a statewide threshold of approximately 1,100 metric tons of CO2 equivalent, he explained this was not a statewide threshold rather a threshold by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District adopted in their June, 2010 CEQA Guidelines. He indicated it was intended to provide a screening level basis read; therefore, should emissions exceed this level, the project design features would need to be analyzed to determine compliance with the statewide emissions goal encumbered by AB 32. Mr. Torres explained that the AB 32 Greenhouse Gas Reduction goal was to reduce emissions of greenhouse gasses by at least 28.5% beyond a business as usual condition; therefore, having analyzed and quantified the business as usual condition emissions and quantified the greenhouse gas reduction measures, the greenhouse gas reduction measures resulted in approximately 35.25% of a reduction beyond the business as usual condition. Regarding the transit issue and the 9%, Mr. Torres explained that this was not a 9% reduction in traffic trips. The Bay Area has a two-step process for calculating greenhouse gas reduction emissions: Analyze whether the project design features met the criteria to achieve the emissions reduction goal — a 9% greenhouse gas reduction feature was achieved for the transit option; A second portion was weighed and scaled against this; therefore, it was not even a 9% reduction in 13 CC 12-20-2010 greenhouse gas emissions for transit. Mr. Torres explained that within the Addendum for the Transit Option, the greenhouse gas measures for traffic account for at least 72.64% of overall emissions total. The overall additive total of greenhouse gas reduction measures weighed by the BAAQMD's criteria was 27%. To properly weigh them for this sector these two percentages have to be multiplied; therefore, weighed, total greenhouse gas emissions reduction by the transit options went down to 20%. Mr. Torres reported that the methodology of how emissions were calculated specifically for this project was explained to the BAAQMD's Greenhouse Gas Emissions sector and the planner, Segal Michael, agreed with this methodology and that emissions reductions had been accounted for properly. Regarding emissions for cargo ships and cargo containers, Mr. Torres explained this was a Lifecycle Analysis, which was discouraged by the regulatory agencies because it inherently led to a double counting of emissions. He indicated that the emissions from shipping containers, cargo and heavy trucks was under the purview of the USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) and the California Air Resources Board, not the BAAQMD or its local agency, and they properly account for those emissions sectors by the various regulatory schemes in place; therefore, it would be improper to account for those emissions and Lifecycle Analysis because they were already accounted for by other regulatory options. Traffic - Regarding staff's observation of the Albany store, Mr. Mansourian explained the goal was to figure out whether the primary trips were for groceries or other items, and he reported that most shoppers had other items in their carts, adding some items of groceries. He indicated that more than two-thirds of shoppers observed primarily had items other than grocery. Regarding vehicles from Southern Marin using 1-580 and that staff should evaluate the San Quentin exit, Mr. Mansourian reported that this was done with the recommendation that the intersection of Main and Eastbound 1-580 and Francisco Boulevard East should be studied after Target had been in operation for six months to ensure signalization was not required. With regard to the Westbound 1-580 hairpin turn, Mr. Mansourian reported that the volumes the project would contribute to the intersection were analyzed and resulted in approximately 9 a.m. trips and 62 p.m. trips. The intersection operation would be acceptable and the hairpin movement was a typical old Marin County on- ramp. Caltrans had no comment on its operation and the weaving section depended on a driver's comfort and skill to merge with 1-580; therefore, the impact of this project would be minimal. Regarding the study of whether hypothetically adding 10% full-service grocery inside the Target store was equal to 20% - 25% of the store selling groceries, Mr. Mansourian explained that the 10% addition to the existing 8% was a much higher trip generating use, being a full-service grocery, and would surpass the 20% - 25%; however, the impact was minimal at the intersections studied. Regarding Level of Service E, Mr. Mansourian explained that a lot of intersections were at LOS E because of high traffic volumes and pedestrians. Sales Tax — Projections in other communities versus reality: Ms. Mackle explained that other communities were not consulted regarding projections; however, staff checked with the Sales Tax Consultant, who works with hundreds of cities in California, who had access to the figures generated in communities by Target and confirmed that the figure for San Rafael was within the range of what could be expected. Parking Revenue — Ms. Mackle stated staff did not expect a sustained competition downtown since it was a different market than what was sold at Target. The revenue generated from Parking Services was separate from the General Fund and was generated from people parking downtown for retail, restaurant visitors, tourists, office, residents and special events. Should there be a revenue decline in retail it could be offset because a large portion of the base was office users, tourism and events. 14 CC 12-20-2010 Wages - On the question of whether staff looked at the California Employment Development Department, Ms. Mackle reported that from research online the only data available was for San Francisco, which included Marin; however, staff believed the local Workforce Investment Board would be a more defined source. Other Studies — Ms. Mackle reported that the applicant conducted the Urban Decay Analysis as part of this project; however, other studies had not been evaluated to ascertain what happened in other communities. Target as an Anchor Store - Regarding comments attributed to her concerning Target being an anchor store, to clarify, Ms. Mackle read from an October 22, 2010 Memorandum she wrote to the Planning Commission: "The location of a business such as Target can assist in filling vacancies in the immediate area of the store. Many businesses seek to locate near an `anchor' such as Target due to the number of customers that a national retailer would draw. Target could draw new customers to San Rafael that are not currently in our market. This could assist San Rafael with filling vacancies in East San Rafael, bringing even more jobs to the area." Ms. Mackle explained that the context was about some of the vacancies along East Francisco and the area of the store and was not about developing or building additional retail shops around Target. She indicated this was not the intent, the area was not zoned for such a use, rather it purely concerned vacancies. Ben Sigman, Vice -President, AECOM, stated he could generally agree with Ms. Mackle's remarks and could comment on specifics if necessary. Zoning Matters — Regarding the question of should a Light Industrial/Office Land Use be proposed on the site, whether it would require amending the General Plan, Mr. Jensen stated that it would not nor would it require amending the zoning as zoning was currently structured to permit that type of use subject to a use permit. Mr. Brown stated it was also important to note that a Light Industrial/Office development on this site would still have a significant traffic impact. Potential applicants had been told over the years that it would be very difficult to justify public benefits to create an override for that traffic impact. This case concerned sales tax and other benefits that involved the building, which would be difficult for an office type use — noting ten years worth of vacant office supply currently. Overrides — Mr. Jensen clarified that the City had approved projects with Findings of Overriding Consideration approximately 12 years ago. He reported that the City had approved an Override for the chain store Home Depot, explaining that when Home Depot was constructed there was a significant environmental impact report; however, that override was not just for that store, rather for entitling the remainder of the Shoreline Center, including the two vehicle dealerships. Landfill - Mr. Jensen reported that the EIR prepared for this project had a very extensive analysis of the landfill and included numerous mitigation measures which this project was required to implement to ensure that the landfill integrity was not compromised and that certain measures were taken to ensure that monitoring wells and such were respected. Regarding the comment on whether a big -box store had been built on a landfill, Mr. Jensen noted Home Depot was part of the same landfill and was considered in the original EIR. John Dewes, Regional Development Manager, Target, stated he would follow up on questions asked of Target at the December 6, 2010 City Council meeting: 15 CC 12-20-2010 Potential to remodel the building to increase food sales and create a Target superstore — Mr. Dewes explained that Target had two models — a General Merchandise store of approximately 140,000 square -feet and a Superstore, which includes a full -line grocery, of approximately 185,000 square -feet, approximately 50,000 square -feet of which accounted for the full -line grocery. In San Rafael's case, 10,000 square -feet would be utilized for grocery sales, without a bakery, butcher or delicatessen and with no potential to remodel the general merchandise store into a super Target. The allowable building area on the site and the site characteristics, including set -backs, precluded Target from doing so. From a physical and zoning standpoint, it would not be possible without having to go through the process from scratch. • What extent of the food and grocery items offered by Target was from a local source — Mr. Dewes reported that Target partners on a regional basis with vendors to provide local produce. Distribution centers were located throughout the state and the region and Target works on a regional basis to provide local produce, which they were committed to expanding, particularly with the P -Fresh initiative. He indicated that Target issued a new sustainability commitment last week with local sourcing from vendors a top priority. Private security and the provisions and programs implemented by Target - Mr. Dewes explained that Target team members were involved in the retail side of the store and each store had between three and six Security Asset Protection team members who were specific to Asset Protection Security and not just working in the general retail store. They undergo a completely different training program in a different department. All stores were also equipped with camera systems and they would be switching from closed circuit televisions to a digital camera system called Target Video Solutions, a web -based solution, so that it could be viewed through Target's website on a 24-hour basis at different locations. This would provide more flexibility and cameras would be located within stores and parking lots to ensure events occurring on the property were captured. Mr. Dewes reported that building security lighting was operated by an energy management system so that it remained on from dusk until dawn. Every store has a burglar alarm, fire sprinkler alarm and early fire warning system connected to a 24-hour monitoring station and if required by local code, they would also be tied in to the local police and fire departments. Mr. Dewes noted that Target uses a national crimes statistic databases service to assess each store's security risk. Each store was assessed to customize needs in terms of security environments. • Seismic Issue — Mr. Dewes stated that every project constructed was required to go through a Building Code and Plan Check Review by the Building Department of the related city. The California State Building Code and International Building Code (IBC) were used in California and had very strict seismic regulations. Building permits could not be obtained unless the plans reflected those and a Certificate of Occupancy could not be obtained unless the building inspection showed that the building complied with the regulations. Noting Home Depot was built on landfill, Mr. Dewes reported that other Target stores around the country had also been built atop landfills and part of the reason for building on landfill returned to the idea of making use of brown field sites and sites having problems that could be turned into more productive property. In this case this would be done by installing long piles into bedrock, similar to Home Depot. Brian Treber, Senior Regional Real Estate Manager, Target Corporation, expressed gratitude to the staff for their work and to the City Council for bearing with them through the process. • With regard to the comment that Target makes its money from its credit operations, Mr. Treber submitted a copy of Target's Annual Report detailing very factual information with regard to exactly what Target does in its operations. Most importantly, on the credit side, he reported that last year approximately 5% of Target's total income was from credit operations. • Regarding the site development viability in terms of alternatives, Mr. Treber explained this was not just a landfill, rather an integral cap sitting on top of the landfill being monitored and managed, with a further 150 — 200 -feet of Bay Mud underneath the landfill. Building on the site would incur approximately $11 million in costs in order to deal with the subsurface conditions in this property and create a pad upon which to build the structure. Indicating that this development cost was critically important in discussions concerning warehouse, office 16 CC 12-20-2010 or other options, Mr. Treber stated that one of the analyses related to what that cost does to those kinds of projects. From Target's perspective this cost added approximately $20 - $25 per square -foot on an annual basis for Target to operate, which was the same for office, retail or residential. In looking at competitive space he stated the issue was why should someone lease space in such an environment at twice the cost of leasing space else where. Mr. Treber distributed a letter detailing his remarks as well as real estate study reports dealing with vacancies, rental rates, etc. Having worked with staff on this property over the years he stated the issue was that only a very few select types of businesses could afford to build on this site. Constructing a smaller building would still incur the $11 million in costs; albeit the smaller building would generate far less public benefit; however, the development cost remained that high. Mr. Treber commented that looking at property around the Bay Area, the reason a ten or fifteen acre piece of property had not been developed was because it was so expensive. Target had perfected this process over several stores built on similar types of landfills and was confident in investing $50 million in San Rafael to do this. Stating that several Target stores had been built on landfills, he commented that the company had perfected the process over the years and was confident in tackling it. He did not know of many other businesses that would invest so much to open on such a property. Regarding the question of whether a smaller store could be built on the site, Mr. Treber explained there were two prototypes: the P -Store or the Super Target. While there were smaller stores in the chain they were much more expensive to operate. In looking at the proposed site, making the store smaller would raise the incremental costs on return and removing space would also decrease sales tax revenue and public benefit. To remove space from the stock room would have the negative effect of increasing traffic because of additional truck trips to service the store. Mr. Treber stated they believed the store plan developed was the optimum store size to serve the San Rafael market. Regarding impacts on downtown, Mr. Treber stated Target was one business. Target had opened stores in cities with very vibrant downtowns with no negative impacts. Napa being similar in size to San Rafael had two Target stores and a very vibrant downtown. He noted the Walnut Creek Target was in the downtown and all businesses were thriving. Mr. Treber reported that in going through the approval process at Davis one of the biggest fears concerned what Target would do to Downtown Davis. Ultimately, the Downtown Business Council supported the Target store. The store was opened approximately eighteen months ago and Davis was realizing all the sales tax benefits projected, and had not seen a single business fail as a result of the Target store. • Regarding trips to the Novato store, Mr. Treber reported that credit card transactions tracked from last year amounted to 380,000 from Southern Marin residents. Mr. Treber reported that he and John Dewes had personally opened up ten stores in the Bay Area in the last few years and where stores had a temporary sister store impact, within three to five years the store impacted recovered to the original volume. He stated that the 380,000 trips demonstrated a lot of demand in San Rafael and Southern Marin for the goods and services provided by Target. Mr. Treber stated that like any other business in San Rafael people could not be forced to work at Target. What Target could do is put a "Help Wanted" sign outside and hope to attract people to apply for employment. He suggested that, should Home Depot pay a wage similar to all San Rafael retailers, most likely Target would have to also pay that wage to attract employees. With regard to the so called "living wage" Mr. Treber stated what was missed was what was provided. He explained that of the approximately 250 jobs to be offered at Target, not all were low wage as approximately 30% were executive team members. The balance of the workforce would be filled with entry level jobs available to teenagers and college students. Jamie Taiii, Human Resources Manager, stated that since 1946 Target had given 5% of pre-tax income to local communities. This was notable in comparison to most corporations that limited annual contributions to % to 1 '/2 %. The 5% contributions by Target equaled more than $3 million per week in support of arts, education, social services and volunteerism. She reported that in 2009, nationally, Target's contributions totaled more than $133 million in cash, $53 million in in-kind donations and 450,000 volunteer hours. Ms. Tajii stated that Target had contributed approximately $10,000 to schools and non-profit organizations in San Rafael, primarily from the Novato store, the one existing Marin County Target store. A partial list of the schools and organizations in San Rafael that received funding included Coleman Elementary School, San Rafael High School, Dixie Elementary School, Falkirk Cultural Center, Young Imaginations and Youth in Arts. 17 CC 12-20-2010 Addressing the comments regarding illegal waste disposal, Ms. Tajii clarified that Target was a defendant in a civil lawsuit filed in June, 2009, alleging that Target did not handle and dispose of certain unsold products as hazardous waste. The case was in the discovery phase and the court had issued a preliminary injunction requiring that Target comply with all California hazardous waste laws - the initial trial in this matter was scheduled for May, 2011. Ms. Tajii explained that Target had a comprehensive program to ensure handling, storage, disposal and documentation of hazardous materials complies with California law. Store teams are trained regularly as part of this program. She indicated that any legal challenge to Target's program was taken very seriously and the company would continue to devote substantial resources in order to remain a responsible corporate citizen. In response to a comment concerning a political contribution to Minnesota Forward in support of right-wing governments, Ms. Tajii explained that as a member of the GLBT (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender) community, this topic was close to her heart. She had worked for Target for nine years and had been able to see firsthand how committed Target was to the GLBT community and to inclusion. Target had been a great friend to that community and a leader on GLBT issues in the workplace.. She stated that in 2009 and 2010, the Human Rights Campaign named Target one of the best places to work for GLBT equality. She reported they earned their 100 point perfect score by genuinely caring about these team members and the communities in which Target does business. Recognizing that the contribution to Minnesota Forward was a mistake and had tarnished Target's reputation, she indicated that Target was committed to rebuilding its reputation. Ms. Tajii stated that Target had made a significant investment in recruiting and retaining GLBT team members. They had sponsored the Reaching Out MBA Recruiting Conference, been the key sponsor of the Twin Cities' Pride and winner of the 2010 Twin Cities' Pride Corporate Achievement Award, they were a consistent sponsor of the HRC (Human Rights Campaign) Annual Dinner, sponsored the National Coming Out Day Lunch, Rainbow Families Conference, Out and Equal Workplace Summit and GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) Media Awards, as well as providing many GLBT speakers at national diversity conferences. Noting some of the information was proprietary Ms. Tajii stated Target had a comprehensive pay and benefits plan that aligned with the external market. Target benchmarks their offerings annually with other retail and Fortune 100 companies to ensure their pay and benefits package remained the best in the industry. She reported that on average, 35% of team members were fulltime, with 65% part-time. The benefits for fulltime and benefitted part-time positions included: • Healthcare • 401(k) plan, which Ms. Tajii noted was the best in retail — Target matched dollar for dollar up to 5% of the employee's pay and employees were 100% immediately invested • Team member discounts • Life resources provided to team members, their dependents and household members • Time off, including sick days, vacation and bereavement pay • Long-term disability • Flexible spending accounts • Daycare FSA Regarding healthcare benefits, Ms. Tajii stated that Target offers preventative care programs that meet or exceed the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force recommendations, including immunizations, preventative labs, x-rays and cancer screenings. Target pays 100% of preventative care and on average pays 70% of a team member's healthcare premiums. With regard to management training, Ms. Tajii invited three local team leaders who started as hourly team members with Target, to tell their stories. Samantha Riles, Target employee of over six years, stated she was hired as an hourly team leader at one of the Napa stores and within six months, she was made aware of the vast array of opportunities for advancement and the many different training programs Target provided. Within approximately 18 months, she reported having received a promotion to Senior Team Leader, with a significant pay increase. Ms. Riles reported that three years into her employment with Target she was promoted to Executive Team Leader and became a salaried employee. Since then, she had been working in management in a few different positions and continued to train in various areas and she was happy and proud to work for Target. 18 CC 12-20-2010 Executive Team Leader for the Santa Rosa Target store, Kelsev Reed, stated she was hired in the Rohnert Park Target seven years ago while she attended college as a part-time student. Within six months, she was promoted and given leadership opportunities in other areas. After being promoted again and holding a couple of different team leadership positions for two years, she was promoted to another Target store where, having completed an executive internship, she became an Executive Team Leader. She stated she was in charge of recruiting, conducted peer training and training new executives. Kendra Craver stated she was an investigator with Target under the umbrella of the Assets Protection Program operating from the Northern California Investigations Center located in San Bruno, California. This Investigations Center was one of 13 in the country and she was assigned to the district encompassing the Target stores in Novato, Rohnert Park, Santa Rosa, Napa and Eureka. Ms. Craver reported she had been an hourly employee just ten months ago, having started as a Target Protection Specialist where she was part of the uniformed security located near the entrance of the store. Having held that position for two months she was promoted to the executive position of Investigator and her original career path of strictly law enforcement changed to the career path of hopefully retiring from Target. She reported that Target has an accredited forensics laboratory where she received basic evidence collection training and she presents to law enforcement agencies that are permitted to use Target's forensic laboratory free of charge. She stated she was very blessed to work for Target. Councilmember Heller inquired whether Target was planning on opening a store at the Gateway Center in Marin City and whether the opening of a store at that location would be cause not to develop a store in San Rafael. Mr.Treber stated Target had no plans to open in Marin City Mayor Boro stated it would be beneficial to receive Ms. Tajii's benefits summary in writing. With regard to the statement that 100% of preventative care was paid for and 70% of premiums for healthcare was paid for, Mayor Boro inquired whether this was for fulltime employees. Explaining that it varied based on the healthcare plan the employee chose, Ms. Tajii confirmed that Target paid approximately 70% which included a combination of both full-time and part-time employees. Ms. Tajii clarified that Target provided healthcare benefits to 70% of benefitted employees, which included anyone who worked an average of 19.5 hours or more in a week. Mayor Boro requested a written summary. Regarding the percentage of charitable contributions, Councilmember Brockbank requested clarification on the initiation date of such contributions, noting 1962 was mentioned somewhere. Ms. Tajii clarified this went back to Target's predecessor, Dayton Hudson, who always had the 5% rule. Aware of Target's commitment to hiring local members of the community, Councilmember Connolly invited Ms. Tajii to elaborate on this commitment. Ms. Tajii stated that in an ideal world, the majority of employees would come directly from the communities where Target does business. Historically, approximately 85% of employees came from the local area. She indicated that Target had made a firm commitment and documented the steps to be taken to recruit locally Councilmember Connolly requested further explanation on whether local meant San Rafael, the Bay Area, etc. Mr. Dewes stated that in this context local meant within San Rafael and the local environs, i.e., a short distance from the store. Councilmember Connolly inquired as to the percentage of local hiring achieved in the Novato store. As Ms. Tajii did not have the statistics available, Mr. Dewes confirmed that the vast majority of employees would be from within the local area. 19 CC 12-20-2010 Mayor Boro and Councilmember Connolly requested clarification from Target on this question Councilmember Connolly stated the City Council would be looking for a guarantee of Target's commitment to achieve a similar level of local hiring in San Rafael and he inquired as to what constituted part-time employment at Target. Ms. Tajii explained that those working less than 19.5 hours were not benefitted while employees working 19.5 hours or more were. Target considers part-time benefitted team members anywhere from 19.5 hours to 31.5 hours, with fulltime team members above 31.5 hours. Councilmember Connolly inquired as to what percentage of Target's workforce worked 20 hours or less. Indicating she did not have those statistics, Ms. Tajii explained that it fluctuated from store to store and was also based on the season; therefore, they had been unable to capture this data. On the topic of hiring locally, Mr. Dewes noted that one of the Conditions of Approval stated that Target would be required to hire upwards of 85% locally. With regard to benefits, Councilmember Connolly stated he was attempting to ascertain the percentage of employees qualifying for healthcare. Mr. Dewes confirmed that an employee had to work 20 hours or above in a benefitted position to receive healthcare benefits. Councilmember Connolly inquired as to the percentage of employees who would not have healthcare benefits. Being proprietary, Mr. Dewes stated this information could not be provided in such specific detail. Regarding construction of the Target store, Councilmember Connolly inquired as to what commitment Target could make to hiring locally. Indicating that Target works with local general contractors, Mr. Dewes stated the project would be put out to bid as an open shop which allowed for both union and non-union bids. Councilmember Connolly inquired as to Target's commitment to hiring locally for construction of the store. Mr. Dewes reiterated that as an open bid -out project it would be open to union and non-union shops. Noting the local building association had endorsed the project, Mayor Boro inquired whether Target was planning to work with that group. Mr. Dewes stated this would be one of many groups Target would be working with. Councilmember Brockbank recalled that at the meeting of December 6 Bill Scott, Building Trades Council, indicated he would like Target to have an apprenticeship program and he (Councilmember Brockbank) inquired whether Target would be willing to commit to such a program. As the project would be bid out as an open shop, Mr. Dewes was unaware whether the various unions would take part in such a program. Target would be acting as the hiring agent for the general contractor, noting some sub -contractors could be union and some not, and he inquired whether a local carpenters' union or electrical union would be part of this apprenticeship program. Mayor Boro believed the local Carpenters' Union would be very much in favor of an apprenticeship program and he invited Mr. Dewes to look into the proposal. Mr. Dewes stated Target would also be working with the specific sub -contractors for the project. Mayor Boro suggested this could be a requirement placed on the sub -contractors, should Target so choose. Mr. Dewes concurred. 20 CC 12-20-2010 Returning to the issue of percentage of local hires, Councilmember Brockbank recalled hearing that 85% of Target's employees lived within two miles of the store at issue; however, he also recalled reading that typical commute times in other cities ranged from 15-18 minutes, which appeared to be more than two miles, and he requested clarification. Mr. Dewes stated he was not familiar with the data on commute times. Councilmember Brockbank confirmed that commute times and the City's requirements for local hires, etc., would be included in further information to be provided by Target. Mr. Dewes commented that the commute time for those riding a bicycle or walking to work could be fifteen minutes. Ms. Tajii clarified that her information indicated 85% within the local area and did not specify the mile radius. In terms of hiring proactively within San Rafael, Ms. Tajii read from a letter to Associate Planner, Sarjit Dhaliwal on November 18, 2010: "As set forth in Condition of Approval #10, we will take the following proactive steps: 1. Target will commit to a three-week schedule of local newspaper ads promoting our new San Rafael store's job opportunities. 2. Target will host a job fair renting Pickleweed Community Center to provide a central location for job seekers interested in applying for positions with Target. 3. Target will work with the Marin Workforce Investment Board as well as organizations including the Canal Alliance and the Canal Welcome Center to outreach to job seekers and support with training for job application skills. 4. Target anticipates renting banquet commercial space in the neighborhood on a short-term basis to use as a hiring hall and job application center. 5. Target is already working with Mi Pueblo's Communications Consultants to discuss ways Target can utilize best case practices used by Mi Pueblo for employee recruitment." In driving piles into the ground 200 feet for the building of the foundation, Councilmember Levine inquired as to what would happen to the landfill and clay. Mr. Dewes explained that with pile -driving as opposed to drilling in place, the pier is encapsulated as it is being driven down until it hits bedrock; therefore, nothing comes to the surface or is pushed out to the Bay. Mr. Dewes confirmed this would all be regulated throughout the construction process. Councilmember Heller noted that the office buildings to the left of the project site were all pile -driven. Councilmember Levine stated he was less concerned for the structural integrity of the building than where all the dirt went. Mr. Dewes explained that the site would be a net import of fill — engineered fill that was structurally appropriate and had undergone environmental review. On the benefits issue, Councilmember Levine noted the transience of the 19.5 hour a week or less employees made it difficult to quantify the percentage of employees; however, although the number greater than 19.5 hours changed, over time these could be tracked because they were benefitted --70% of the total number became benefitted overtime, and he requested clarification. Clarifying, Ms. Tajii explained that 35% of Target employees were full-time and 65% were part-time; however, she did not have statistics on what percentage of part-time employees were under the 19.5 hours per week. Councilmember Levine suggested that the Novato store could be a great point of comparison because the employee pool was similar to San Rafael's. Councilmember Levine requested more detail on Target's bus pass program. Mr. Dewes stated that Target had used transit programs in different locations, regionally and nationally. It varied from area to area and region to region working in conjunction with the transit company; however, 21 CC 12-20-2010 administration of the program had not yet been worked out. Councilmember Levine noted that a lot of such programs when deducted from payroll were tax-free Mr. Dewes stated Target has such programs set up in this way; however, some were based on certain states and their tax laws. Councilmember Levine requested a sample of the transit programs Target offered in the different communities and he inquired whether such a program was offered in Novato. Responding in the negative regarding Novato, Mr. Dewes explained this is done on a regional basis as necessary, noting the Canal Area of San Rafael had a large population without cars. Councilmember Levine stated he would be interested in the cost of the transit passes, the size of the discounts and how they were managed, together with participation levels. With regard to bike lockers, Councilmember Levine stated San Rafael's preference was that these be located in the interior of the building; however, Target proposed to locate them outside, and he inquired as to that location. Mr. Dewes explained that they would be located with the short-term bike racks near the entrance, wrapping around to the outdoor food area. These bike storage units were used in Albany, Davis and other locations and consisted of locked bicycle storage units using different types of locks. Regarding the bike discount program, Councilmember Levine inquired what type of discount Target intended to offer its employees. Mr. Dewes explained this was a team member discount of 10% on top of the 10% discount offered to employees on store products. A system would be set up for each individual team member regarding how often a bicycle was purchased. Councilmember Levine inquired whether the additional 10% discount would be provided for bike locks, helmets and safety gear. As such a program was not utilized on a general basis Mr. Dewes believed that currently a policy was not in place. Concerning the truck turn -around at the southern access point road, Mr. Dewes identified on the site map where trucks would enter and exit while remaining in the secondary lane and not entering the main field of parking or pedestrians. Councilmember Levine inquired as to the point of the lane on the back side of the building. Mr. Dewes explained that this was required by the Fire Department as fire access. Councilmember Levine inquired whether Mr. Dewes had figures on the total products sold in the store and the number of non-taxable products. Noting every Target store had a different mix of products, Mr. Treber reported they carried approximately 80,000 skews. Based on current tax law some pharmacy areas were non-taxable, some food areas were currently non-taxable; therefore, from his understanding those areas were somewhere around 10% of the store by floor area. Mayor Boro noted that when he shops at Target the receipt reflects the amount of tax in the total and he suggested consideration be given to how to better understand this in the total dimension of gross revenues for the store. Councilmember Levine suggested looking at the Novato store to gain a sense of patterns and what the community was purchasing and he inquired as to where Target's buyers were based. Mr. Treber stated that all buyers were based in the Target headquarters in Minneapolis. Councilmember Levine inquired as to what level of store -based decision-making there was for product mix 22 CC 12-20-2010 Mr. Treber stated that in running 1,700 stores nationwide Target had a very centralized system in terms of distribution and purchasing decisions were being made for 1,700 stores nationwide from a central location. Regarding security, Councilmember Levine inquired how long the video data captured by security cameras was retained. Mr. Treber stated the period was 30 days plus 1. Councilmember Levine inquired as to the typical investment in a foundation for a Target site. Mr. Dewes stated that a simple spread footing foundation system with a slab on grade would be somewhere in the region of $1 million - $1.5 million. Councilmember Levine inquired as to other locations with similar sites to San Rafael's. Mr. Dewes stated that nationally there were many and at least 200 had been built on a pile -driven system. Noting 380,000 transactions at the Novato store from Southern Marin, Councilmember Levine inquired as to the total number of transactions at the Novato store. As cash transactions are not tracked, Mr. Treber stated that the 380,000 was approximately 80% of the total 450,000 transactions. Councilmember Brockbank requested further information on locally -sourced products, as sustainability was a very important topic in the community. Mr. Dewes reported that Target had just published a new sustainability commitment last week. Understanding non-food products were sourced on a national basis, Councilmember Brockbank stated that particularly on food this was a very important concept. He noted Wal-Mart had hired some nationally prominent sustainability consultants recently who were making great strides with locally -sourced products in greening their supply chain and requiring manufacturers to lower their carbon footprint. He suggested Target take a lead instead of following Wal-Mart and it would be influential to his vote to know what Target was doing to be sustainable, particularly with local food. He requested Target to provide the City Council with a copy of their new sustainability commitments. Concurring with Councilmember Brockbank on local procurement policies, Councilmember Connolly inquired as to the statistic that big -box stores reduce overall retail employment in a community — for every one job created, 1.4 jobs were eliminated. Mr. Dewes stated that the Federal Reserve in their study determined that the idea of big -box stores creating poverty and unemployment was untrue and he would submit publications on this issue. Councilmember Connolly stated this issue needed to be looked into further. Mayor Boro thanked the Target representatives as well as the three team members who had addressed the City Council. In response to Mr. Salen's question regarding what the City Council did, Mayor Boro stated that the City Council attempts to run the City. They were charged with a lot of responsibilities, the most important of which was to provide public safety services to the community — police, fire and paramedics — as well as other services the community expects — library, public works, recreation, etc. — and in order to do this the City needed to be financially viable. The City and City Council had a long-term plan to achieve financial viability and it was their responsibility to ensure a police car or fire engine was available when needed and that when residents came to the City for a planning permit, City Hall was open at reasonable times to provide such a permit. In the City Council's long-term goals, going back approximately five years and reaffirmed a couple of years later, this particular site was designated as a sales tax generator. He noted 40% of revenue was based on sales tax. Mayor Boro stated the discussions with Target were good — they answered some questions well and could do better on others; however, this could be worked on. Going forward he believed that conducting a Community 23 CC 12-20-2010 Impact Study and Report needed to be evaluated as it was important for the City Council's credibility with the community and also for Target's credibility with the community. Mayor Boro suggested that staff discuss with the City's Financial Consultant how this could be done and what could be achieved from such a study, with the goal of returning to the City Council with a recommendation. He invited the City Attorney at some future time to discuss the issue of proprietary information. Mayor Boro commented that in the Community Impact Report information could be gained on what was promised by Target in a community versus what actually occurred and the impact on the communities studied. Mayor Boro stated he had a sense of the City Council that before a decision could be made answers were needed to some questions, and these could come from this study. Mayor Boro suggested that staff be instructed to begin work on the requirements for a Community Impact Report, return the scope of work to the City Council for review and input on whether it met Council's needs; subsequently the City Council would commission the Community Impact Report. Mr. Epstein stated that it would be helpful for the record to clarify that for this evening's purposes the public hearing was closed, subject to the City Council's discretion to make a determination at a later point in time as to whether to re -open it and if so, for what purpose. Councilmember Levine moved and Councilmember Heller seconded to engage in a Community Impact Report and to close the public hearing. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Brockbank, Connolly, Heller, Levine & Mayor Boro NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Mayor Boro thanked the members of the public who had attended this evening. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT: 17. None. COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS / REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: (including AB 1234 Reports on Meetings and Conferences Attended at City Expense) 18. Vice -Mayor Election and Committee Assignments: - File 9-1 x 275 Mayor Boro announced that the Vice -Mayor for the City of San Rafael would be elected at the January 3, 2011 City Council meeting. Current City Council Committee assignments would continue. There being no further business, Mayor Boro adjourned the City Council meeting at 11:55 p.m. ESTHER C. BEIRNE, City Clerk APPROVED THIS DAY OF 2010 ALBERT J. BORO, Mayor 24 CC 12-20-2010