HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes 2010-12-06SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/06/2010 Page 583
IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, MONDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2010 AT 8:00 P.M.
Combined Special and 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.
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
6:06 PM
Intersection at Mission & Nve Streets: - File 9-1 x 9-3-40
Noting a pedestrian was struck and seriously injured in the crosswalk at Mission & Nye Streets by a car travelling
at a speed in excess of 30 miles per hour last week, Nick Strauss, San Rafael, stated something needed to be
done about the speed and safety of traffic on this street.
Mayor Boro stated that Interim City Manager Jim Schutz would investigate and report to the City Council.
Councilmember Connolly moved and Councilmember Levine seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar as
follows:
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Paramedic Services Special Tax — Measure I: (CC)
a) Resolution Declaring Canvass of Returns and
Results of Consolidated Special Municipal
Election Held on November 2, 2010, Re:
Measure I - Paramedic Services Special Tax on
Residential Units and Non -Residential Structures
and Appropriations Limit Increase (CC) — File 9-4
b) ORDINANCE NO. 1891 — "An Ordinance of the
City Council of the City of San Rafael Amending
Sections 3.28.040 and 3.28.050 of Chapter 3.28
of the San Rafael Municipal Code, to Increase the
Maximum Special Paramedic Tax Rate on
Residential Units and on Non -Residential
Structures and to Increase the City's
Appropriations Limit in Connection Therewith"
(CC) — File 9-4
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
a) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 13079
RESOLUTION DECLARING CANVASS
OF RETURNS AND RESULTS OF
CONSOLIDATED SPECIAL MUNICIPAL
ELECTION HELD ON NOVEMBER 2,
2010 RE: MEASURE I — PARAMEDIC
SERVICES SPECIAL TAX ON
RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND ON NOW
RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES AND
APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT INCREASE
b) ACCEPTED ORDINANCE NO. 1891
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS
3.28.040 AND 3.28.050 OF CHAPTER
3.28 OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL
CODE, TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM
SPECIAL PARAMEDIC TAX RATE ON
RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND ON NOW
RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES AND TO
INCREASE THE CITY'S
APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT IN
CONNECTION THEREWITH
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Brockbank, Connolly, Heller, Levine & Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAINING: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Boro from 11/15/2010 minutes, due to absence from
meeting.
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/06/2010
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/06/2010 Page 584
PUBLIC HEARING:
3. 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
Mayor Boro declared the public hearing opened.
City Attorney Robert Epstein clarified staff's objectives and recommendations as to how the meeting on this
item would proceed:
1) Staff to present staff report
2) Public Input on the project
3) Response by staff to questions raised
4) Staff to request continuance of Council's deliberation and decision to the City Council Meeting on
December 20, 2010.
Beginning with the staff report, Mr. Epstein stated there would then be an opportunity for Council questions
to staff. Mayor Boro would outline the guidelines for public testimony subsequent to which that portion of
the meeting would be closed and staff would respond to questions raised. The project sponsor would be
invited to provide any closing comment and subsequently staff would request the opportunity to return with
a further staff report for Council deliberation and decision.
Mr. Epstein reported that voluminous written communications had been received on this matter, including
approximately 500 copies of a petition circulated on the Internet in opposition to the project. Binders
containing copies of written communications received since November 30, 2010 were located in the lobby
and on the dais. Mr. Epstein stated that written communications brought to this evening's meeting should
be submitted to the City Clerk, noting further communications would not be accepted subsequent to closure
of the public hearing this evening.
While staff would endeavor to respond to questions raised this evening, Mr. Epstein noted that legal and
other arguments continued to be received up to and including today. Therefore, for that reason, questions
or arguments staff was unable to respond to this evening would be the subject of a written and oral staff
report at the meeting of December 20, 2010, to be followed by Council deliberation and opportunity for
decision. Mr. Epstein explained that, subsequent to the steps described, the public hearing would be
closed this evening.
Mr. Epstein announced that a Spanish translator was present to render assistance to those needing this
service.
Isabel -Garcia, Translator, outlined the translation procedure in Spanish.
Interim City Manager Jim Schutz explained that this Target project was initiated in 2006, at which time the
City's Five -Year Goals contained statements such as "maintaining quality services with limited funding;
achieve long-term financial stability" and two top goals "preserve critical services and fiscal health and
improve economic vitality." As city governments were unable to balance budgets solely by cutting services
or increasing revenues, the combination of both was necessary. Post -recession goals addressed cutting
costs as well as business attraction and job development, expanding the tax base and completing the
Shoreline Center with a large sales tax generating retailer, and envisioned a San Rafael with a healthy mix
of businesses to meet the needs of the area while maintaining a diverse economic base. Mr. Schutz
explained that with the staff proposed amendments, the project would be consistent with General Plan
2020, which did envision future changes for the site. He noted the General Plan is amended from time to
time, frequently in connection with larger projects.
Mr. Schutz explained that Paul Jensen. Planning Manager, would provide the project's history and
CC 12-06-2010
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/06/2010 Page 585
description, a summary of the environmental findings, actions from the Design Review Board and Planning
Commission and other key planning issues. Public Works Director Nader Mansourian would discuss traffic
conditions and Economic Development Director, Nancy Mackle, would address economic issues.
Paul Jensen stated the Target store project was proposed as part of the Shoreline Center, located in East
San Rafael. A former landfill, the site had been closed as a landfill for a number of years and was
developed with Home Depot and two auto dealerships. Referred to as "Lot 6" under the Shoreline Master
Plan, the property was the largest site at 19.5 acres and the property closest to the Bay.
Mr. Jensen explained that the project was first initiated in 2006 for a 137,000 square -foot store on the 19 -
acre site. The project participated in two rounds of the City's Project Selection Process (PSP) for priority
projects to secure traffic allocation. It was successful in securing traffic allocation and in 2008, was granted
the same allocation — since expired.
Indicating the planning applications were filed in 2007, Mr. Jensen stated the Design Review Board
process commenced in February, 2007 and ran through May, 2008. The EIR (Environmental Impact
Report) preparation and review process commenced in September, 2007, with an EIR certified in October,
2009 and, as previously reported, the project was placed on hold and reactivated earlier this year (2010).
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the EIR and the project in November, 2010 and a total
of twelve public hearings and meetings on this project had taken place to date.
Mr. Jensen reported that the reactivated project was essentially the project filed in 2007. Modifications
included division of the property into two parcels, with a 15.8 acre portion for the Target store and a smaller
3.6 acre site for the existing BMW storage yard and a landscape easement. Consequently, the Target
building was moved northward by 28 feet and eastward by 3.5 feet.
Mr. Jensen reported that with the reactivated project the applicant proposed to meet the LEED Gold Green
Building standard. Displaying a general lay -out of the reactivated project, he explained that the structure
had been moved northward by 28 -feet and the general lay -out was similar to what was filed in 2007. He
noted that a tower element was proposed as part of the project.
Planning Applications:
1. A request to amend the General Plan to add region -serving, specialty retail use to the Light
Industrial/ Office Land Use designation. The Light Industrial/Office Land Use designation covers a
good portion of the Northgate Industrial Park and East San Rafael.
2. A proposed amendment to the Shoreline Center Master Plan (a re -zoning), Use Permit for the se of
the retail store, an accompanying Design Review Permit - proposal for approval of the design and
lay -out - and a tentative parcel map for the land division.
Mr. Jensen reported that a summary of the Design Review Board review process commenced in February,
2007 and had gone through two rounds of significant design revisions, with the Design Review Board
ultimately recommending approval of the design with minor modifications and conditions in May, 2008.
Mr. Jensen explained that, when the reactivated project surfaced, staff evaluated whether it warranted
returning to the Design Review Board and concluded that it did not because the general design remained
unchanged.
Regarding the environmental review, Mr. Jensen reported that this process commenced in September,
2007. A scoping hearing took place with the Planning Commission in 2007 to assess what needed to be
addressed and covered in the EIR. In August 2008, a Draft EIR was published and as a result of a public
hearing on the Draft EIR a Final EIR and Response to Comments was prepared, which was published one
year later — the City Council certified that document in October, 2009.
Mr. Jensen listed the topics covered in the EIR. He noted that, while the project did not have any direct
impact on wetlands, proximity to wetlands and the adequacy of buffers are always analyzed.
Regarding the findings of the EIR, Mr. Jensen reported it concludes that the project would result in
significant and unavoidable impacts to traffic, land use and planning (in the context of being consistent with
several policies of the General Plan) and air quality. With regard to traffic, the specific impact is to the
Bellam Boulevard/Kerner Boulevard intersection.
CC 12-06-2010
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/06/2010 Page 586
Mr. Jensen explained that the Air Quality Impact — significant and unavoidable — was associated with the
General Plan amendment and change in land use and was cumulative and not a direct impact of the
project. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) relies on the local agency General
Plans to keep track of air quality impacts; therefore, changing the General Plan is automatically deemed to
be a significant impact as they already determined that air quality, cumulatively in the Bay Area, was
significant and unavoidable. He noted this air quality impact was not generated by the project as much as
the change in the General Plan impacts the air quality plan. Mr. Jensen explained that significant
unavoidable impacts were those for which mitigations or solutions were not available to reduce them to less
than significant levels or to eliminate them in their entirety.
Mr. Jensen reported that the Final EIR concluded there were fifteen potentially significant impacts for which
there was mitigation — Mitigation Monitoring Plan included in this evening's packet and covered in the
recommended Conditions of Approval. Seventeen Less Than Significant Impacts were those that did not
rise to a level that require mitigation.
Mr. Jensen reported that the reactivated project was reviewed to determine that it was adequately covered
by the Final EIR. An initial study was prepared which concluded there were no new significant
environmental effects or increase in severity of the impacts previously analyzed in the certified EIR, with no
substantial changes in information or revisions required to the original document. Consequently, an
Addendum to the EIR was prepared that accompanies the four volumes of the Final EIR.
Addressing some of the issues covered in the Addendum, Mr. Jensen reported it included a preparation of
an updated assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. While not required, it was done primarily because
of rule changes at the Air District earlier this year to address changes in CEQA. The project is not subject
to those rules; however, since the information was current, staff believed it should be reported out in the
Addendum. An expanded aesthetic and visual assessment was included; biological resources were
addressed which concluded that the buffer was not compromised by the change. Mr. Jensen stated that
the Addendum also provided an opportunity to summarize some of the recent monitoring reports for the
landfill and to address hydrology and water quality impacts.
Mr. Jensen stated that the Planning Commission's review of the project entailed a lengthy public hearing
with thirty speakers both in support of and opposition to the project:
• Planning Commissioners had questions concerning the estimated annual sales tax
• They discussed limiting grocery merchandise sales
• They questioned whether the traffic study assessed grocery sales
• Concern was expressed about the success of landscaping on the site
• Concern regarding excessive parking and discussion of a parking reduction;
• Discussion concerning improving store access to the outdoor dining and seating area
• Elimination of a second pedestrian path connecting to the public Shoreline
• Possibly lowering the tower structure
• Questions to the project sponsor concerning a local hire for construction
Mr. Jensen reported that the Planning Commission voted 5:2 to support approval of the project subject to
the project sponsor's enhancing the public benefit proposal presented to override the Traffic Impact. The
Planning Commission's recommendations included a requirement for stronger enforcement on
landscaping, approval of a parking reduction of 50 spaces, with a monitoring requirement of this parking
over five years following occupancy, together with elimination of a second pedestrian path to the Shoreline
Park.
Environmental Issues:
Mr. Jensen reported that under state law for environmental review should there be a significant
unavoidable impact, in order to approve a project a Statement of Overriding Considerations must be
considered - the impact that could not be mitigated must be weighed against the benefits of the project.
Similarly, General Plan 2020 allows an exception to the Level of Service (LOS) standards — Policy C5 D —
by weighing the benefits of the project to the actual impact.
Summarizing the majority of the public benefits proposed by Target, Mr. Jensen noted an estimated annual
sales tax of $675,000. recruitment of local employees, implementing a local hire program, providing
employee discounts for bike purchase to promote bicycle usage, offering subsidized transit passes for
employees, paying for the construction of a bus shelter at the intersection of Shoreline Parkway and Kerner
Boulevard and a proposed Shoreline access path which would connect to the shoreline, along with
dedication of public parking in the Target lot for that use.
CC 12-06-2010
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/06/2010 Page 587
Since the Planning Commission's review of the project, Mr. Jensen explained that Target had provided
some additional public benefits - summarized by an updated letter (Exhibit 7 of the staff report), which
included their proposal to install and maintain landscaping and irrigation in a round -about located at the
terminus of Shoreline Parkway, commitment to join San Rafael Clean Campaign, as well as a commitment
to install ten bicycle lockers for employees.
Regarding the General Plan amendment, Mr. Jensen stated the proposal was to add region -serving retail
uses to the list of allowable uses in the Light Industrial/Office Land Use Designation. This was
accompanied by an amendment to Policy NH -59, a site-specific policy for the property.
Responding to concerns raised on why the General Plan should be amended for this project, Mr. Jensen
explained that the General Plan currently permits a variety of land uses, including specialty retail in the
Light/industrial and Office area. He defined Specialty Retail as non -convenient, infrequent purchases,
which he explained could also refer to Home Depot and the auto dealerships.
Noting the General Plan allowed for changes in the land use allowances for this site for ultimate
development, Mr. Jensen explained that Program NH -59a, formulated in 2004 during the last General Plan
update, was added primarily because there had been a number of alternative land uses that were
considered for the site, including residential. There was some anticipation that the General Plan would be
amended when ultimate development was proposed for the site. Also, it was the only large remaining site
in the East San Rafael area which was undeveloped. The General Plan EIR incorporated traffic modeling
for a larger retailer in this area of San Rafael.
Mr. Jensen stated the amendment included property building and property and size criteria -- the purpose
being that application of this use allowance was applied to very few sites.
Mr. Jensen noted that the General Plan was not a shelf document. He explained that General Plans were
amended from time to time; state law anticipates that local agencies would amend their General Plans and
allows up to four amendments per year. It was not uncommon for large projects to propose and secure
approval of a General Plan amendment — the last two large projects in San Rafael, Redwood Village and
the Loch Lomond Marina Projects, both included amendments to the General Plan.
Regarding the zoning amendment, Mr. Jensen explained that the property was part of the Shoreline Center
Master Plan, originally established in the early 1990s. Since then, it had been amended eight times and it
was not uncommon for Planned Development Zonings --customized zoning for this area-- to be amended
as changes occurred in the market and in policy. He stated the amendment also included a limit on the use
of the second parcel proposed for the BMW dealership — it would restrict use of the property to a temporary
use. If permanent development was proposed at some point, rezoning would be required.
Regarding key issues on design, Mr. Jensen stated the Conditions of Approval are recommended to
address all EIR mitigation measure, including Conditions requiring monitoring of landscaping and the
parking reduction imposed by the Planning Commission. The Design Review Board found that the design
complies with the required codes and standards, as well as the City's design standards and guidelines.
Public Works Director Nader Mansourian stated he would review the original study, specifically the Trip
Generation Study, discuss the latest improvement on I-580/101/Bellam and respond to a question raised
on whether there was additional impact because of Target selling perishable items.
Mr. Mansourian reported that the intersection of Bellam and Kerner Boulevards operates at LOS E in the
a.m. and subsequent to the project would also operate at LOS E in the p.m. The remaining intersections
and the Bellam corridor operated within the Level of Service policies set by General Plan 2020.
Mr. Mansourian noted that in 2006, as part of the PSP, the applicant's consultant presented data for the
Target store indicating their trip generation was less than that of a typical discount store. The Planning
Commission requested staff to verify this and if reasonable, accept it; staff conducted a study at the Target
Albany store and confirmed this — the proposed Target store would generate 112 a.m. peak and 398 p.m.
peak trips over a 60 -minute period. The study included 8% of the floor area allocated to grocery items
staggered throughout the store; however, the latest Albany Target P -Fresh store model consists of an
additional 2% of the area for perishable food items, and grocery items previously staggered were now
concentrated in one area.
CC 12-06-2010
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/06/2010 Page 588
Mr. Mansourian reported that the recently completed Highway 101/1-580 project indicated better capacity at
the intersections and operation of the corridor and the sidewalk widening helped both pedestrians and
bicyclists.
Mr. Mansourian noted that during construction, one lane of Bellam Blvd. was shut down underneath the
highway for nearly 11 months and for one and a half weeks just before Thanksgiving, the contractor worked
during the day sometimes shutting down two lanes causing huge backups.
Mr. Mansourian stated improvements denoting congestion relief were very noticeable. Freeway bypass
volumes were reduced and the 1-580 ramps do not spill over onto Bellam Boulevard; therefore, lane
capacity was utilized resulting in less queues. He noted these improvements were not included in the
original traffic study conducted in 2008. To quantify what had happened on Bellam Blvd., Mr. Mansourian
reported that staff conducted a series of travel -time studies during rush hour to identify how long it would
take to get from one intersection to another and to verify the improvements. Mr. Mansourian displayed
charts of sample routes and drive times, providing explanation.
Referring to a question raised at the Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Mansourian stated staff conducted
an Impact Analysis. He explained that taking 10% of Target's store size, approximately 14,000 square -
feet, it was converted to a full grocery store to ascertain the impact. The impact resulted in an additional 11
a.m. and 50 p.m. peak trips — he noted a relationship between the Target store and an adjacent grocery
store with shared trips and passers-by. Having monitored the intersection at Bellam and Kerner
specifically, an additional 0.2 second delay was observed in the a.m. and 1.6 second delay in the
afternoon, with the intersection remaining at LOS E. Mr. Mansourian noted a travel study conducted
confirmed the Bellam corridor's operation had improved. The Target store P -Fresh model would not have a
significant impact on the intersection, even with the scenario used, which confirmed the study was
conservative; therefore staff and concluded the EIR impact study remained valid.
Economic Development Director Nancy Mackle reported that as indicated by Interim City Manager, Jim
Schutz, the City Council had many documents that had guided economic development:
• Economic Vision, which folds it into General Plan 2020
• Five -Year Goals
• Economic Vitality Plan
• Recession Action Plan
She indicated that from the very broad goals of looking at the City's financial health to very specific goals of
seeking out a tax -generating retailer, these had been the guiding documents for the work being carried out
in Economic Development. She indicated there were no policies that had directed staff to not allow national
chains. Staff had worked with both small and large businesses, including lots of locations, e.g., the
remodel of the Northgate Mall, which included a lot of national retailers, while at the same time staff spent
many hours working with a small business owner who wanted to reopen a nightclub downtown.
Ms. Mackle noted anything that had been done in economic development in her thirteen and a half years
with the City had been market -rate transactions — no public subsidies had been provided to individual
businesses to attract or retain them. The Redevelopment Agency had subsidized an area of downtown for
economic development purposes by providing funds for beautification, sidewalks, twinkle lights, running
events, etc.
Ms. Mackle stated that in all of the guiding documents on economic development, they all linked quality of
life with economic development. Businesses brought jobs for residents together with tax dollars, all of
which related to dollars used for public services, such as Police, Fire, filling potholes, etc.
City Financial Viability —
Sales tax = 1 %
Transactions & Use Tax (TUT) =.5%
which together generated $19 million - 35% of the General Fund and a significant portion of the budget.
The City relied on sales tax since property taxes were limited based on Proposition 13. Looking at
assessed valuations of homes in San Rafael, she found that 74% provided a maximum of $660 annually in
property taxes to the City. She commented that San Rafael did not have a payroll or utility users' tax.
CC 12-06-2010
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/06/2010 Page 589
Sales Tax Estimate - Ms. Mackle reported a sales projection from Target (Traffic Allocation Process) of $45
million in sales, which was verified as being in the range of what appeared reasonable when the Urban
Decay Analysis was completed - they looked at 2007 average sales data from Target and came up with
something very close and she noted that these estimates had not been increased for inflation since then.
Ms. Mackle stated that gross sales tax — 1.5% x $45 million had been verified by HDL, Sales Tax
Consultants, who indicated this was very much within reason for this type of store. She also noted that
10% grocery did not equate to 10% non-taxable and noting the figure of $675,000 was large, she stated
Target would be a major sales tax producer and a major private employer in San Rafael.
Ms. Mackle stated that other revenues included an estimated $50,000 property tax, one-time City fees,
traffic and affordable housing, street resurfacing fees - $300,000 through the building permit process,
Permit Fees $130,000 and long-range planning fees estimated at $43,000.
Providing an Economic Development perspective on alternative uses, Ms. Mackle stated that according to
Cornish and Carey there are approximately ten years of vacant office space on the market in Marin County,
a lot of which was in San Rafael. At a normal rate of leasing or absorption, it would take the City ten years
to get this leased up; however, this was not the desired type of use. Housing had been explored, which did
not make it through some processes in the City; however, there also was a fiscal impact in that there would
be more calls for service in a residential and less income except for property tax, and formerly a dump it
had site constraints. She commented that retail and auto sales were adjacent and were regional -drawing.
Impact Analysis — Ms. Mackle reported that having evaluated some Community Impact Reports it appeared
much of the analysis had been completed. The Urban Decay Analysis meets the CEQA requirement, the
results of which were still valid. This report looked at retail demand and the demand for sales and indicated
that retail demand was projected to exceed supply by 2014.
Ms. Mackle stated that in addition, through the EIR, related staff reports and ordinances, public services
impact had been analyzed and, while an affordable housing study was not conducted, it was done as part
of the ordinance that has the affordable housing impact fee in place.
Ms. Mackle listed three issues that were not studied in any depth. They were discussed as being part of
Community Impact Reports:
• Wages — having discussed this issue with two economists, it was concluded that the data was not
available.
• Competition not addressed as fully — the Urban Decay Analysis Report discussed retail sales
growth and demands. Community Impact Reports could look at going further; however,
subsequent to discussions with the economist, they could not indicate who would be able to
compete, reinvent themselves or make it. She noted that the Urban Decay Report indicated San
Rafael had the strength for this project.
• Fiscal Impact Report not completed for a retail commercial project of this type. Retail sales tax
dollars and other income always exceed the cost - such a report is typically done for a large
residential development.
Mr. Jensen stated that four resolutions and one draft ordinance had been prepared based on the Planning
Commission's recommendations, albeit they would not be considered this evening. The procedure for
public hearing noticing as required by the Municipal Code was followed. A large amount of comments and
correspondence was received and consultants were available to respond to questions.
With regard to traffic, Councilmember Brockbank inquired whether it would be possible to erect signs
directing traffic towards the freeway, which would solve the problem at Bellam and Kerner.
Mr. Mansourian reported that a sign was installed there a few years ago directing traffic to Highway 101 /1-
580; however, because of the recent backups due to construction on 1-580, drivers had ignored it. His
assumption was that with the improvements more cars would return to the freeway. Additional signs could
also be investigated.
Regarding net sales tax revenue, Councilmember Brockbank inquired whether there were ways of
measuring this by looking at what Target stores had done in other communities for a year or two
subsequent to opening. Also, he inquired as to comments that overall sales tax revenue had not increased
and an increase in one area would mean a corresponding decrease elsewhere.
CC 12-06-2010
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/06/2010 Page 590
Ms. Mackle stated that the consultant could address this and walk through some of the calculations in the
report.
Ben Sigman, AECOM, original authors of the Urban Decay Study, stated they looked at demand on a
household basis. This is determined based on retail sales as reported by the State of California Board of
Equalization. Analysis showed historical population growth as well as real income growth in the region in
the trade area and they anticipated, based on both long-term and more recent trends, that population
growth and real income growth would continue, creating more spending in the economy that additional
stores could capture without off -setting sales at existing stores.
Noting there would be competition, Mr. Sigman explained that on a store -type basis, they evaluate the
growth anticipated in sales together with expenditure potential over a time period during which Target
would be introduced into the economy. This showed that by 2014 gross sales would exceed the amount
necessary to accommodate the Target store. Some specific store categories would face fierce competition
in apparel, general merchandise and drugs, as well as furniture and appliances. He indicated that an over-
supply of retail in the near term was anticipated; however, long-term trends over the next ten years would
satisfy this, where growth in population and in income would make up for any over -supply.
Councilmember Connolly commented that a lot of effort went into enacting General Plan 2020 and
ultimately the area in question was designated for light industrial and office. He requested further
clarification on the original reasoning for designating the area in this way
Mr. Jensen stated most of the land area south of Bellam Boulevard and east of 1-580 is in the Light
Industrial/ Office land use designation and generally, the General Plan wanted to ensure there were
consistent land use designations for the larger areas. It was intentional that there would not be a special
land use designation for the Shoreline Center because it had some specialty retail use and was looked at
as part of the bigger picture for East San Rafael.
Regarding the unmitigable traffic impacts, Councilmember Connolly stated there was the possibility of
people essentially queuing up on Kerner, making a left turn on Bellam to go to the freeway between 4:00
and 6:00 p.m., sitting through as many as four traffic lights.
Mr. Mansourian confirmed this could happen during the worst peak hour times; however, the analysis
looked at an entire 60 minutes for all approaches.
Given the impact of sitting through three or four lights, Councilmember Connolly questioned whether at
some point that level of impact would affect the willingness to shop at the store.
While difficult to respond to, Mr. Mansourian stated it would depend on the individual and the route chosen.
His assumption was that because Target was a destination store, customers would change the time and
route, noting the 1-580 would be a good alternative.
Concerning Target's new business model, Councilmember Connolly questioned whether there was an
anticipated percentage for the P -Fresh food supermarket in this proposal.
Mr. Mansourian stated he did not know the exact area being proposed. A 10% test in addition to the 8%
had been added, noting the 10% tested was a full-service grocery store. From observing the Albany and
Novato stores, staff determined their grocery sales were not the same as Safeway or a full-service store.
Mr. Mansourian stated he was not aware of Novato's percentage.
Councilmember Connolly stated that, if the situation got to the point of a true traffic issue, the City was
limited in what could be done in that turn lanes could not be added at the north or south ends of Kerner.
Noting an overpass or underpass could cost $20 million, should the point be reached where such a remedy
was demanded, Councilmember Connolly inquired as to who ultimately could potentially have to bear the
cost.
Mr. Mansourian explained that Traffic Mitigation Fees are collected - $9 million in the account currently —
and a similar project, Merrydale Overcrossing, utilized City, State and Federal funds. Data is collected
annually on capacity and a report is submitted to the City Council.
CC 12-06-2010
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/06/2010 Page 591
Councilmember Connolly inquired whether ultimately the City would be responsible for such costs.
Mr. Mansourian confirmed that the City would be responsible for paying some of it and he noted that when
a project is located over a state or interstate highway, the City looks for contributions from federal and
state, while collecting its own fees also.
Mr. Schutz confirmed for Councilmember Connolly that the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact topic would
be looked into further at the meeting of December 20, 2010.
Councilmember Connolly stated he would like to explore some of the proposed offsets further. He
indicated he was particularly interested in assumptions relating to local hiring and local workforce and
inquired as to the type of commitments received from Target.
Ms. Mackle stated Target representative would address this issue
Councilmember Connolly stated he was interested in receiving more information on how real the $675,000
sales tax number was, in particular to the extent feasible getting some type of net analysis on how much
local economy -wide this would generate. He also inquired whether traffic intensity would affect revenues,
and given that food would make up a significant portion of the Target store, and it was non-taxable,
whether the numbers needed to be revised.
Councilmember Levine stated that one of the interesting and quite archaic parts of City planning he learned
through this process was the PSP, which no longer occurred. Regarding a traffic allocation being assigned
to the development, with PSP having expired, he inquired as to the current status.
Mr. Jensen explained that this process was set up under General Plan 2000. It was a process by which the
City looks at individual projects in an area to determine whether or not certain projects should be given
priority for limited traffic allocation. It had morphed into what was now the PSP and had been implemented
City-wide. He stated it was not an entitlement and was unlike a Planning Application, such as that before
the City Council tonight, in that it did not grant an approval, rather a placeholder and was a screening
process not an entitlement. He deferred to Mr. Mansourian on how the trips where accounted for in the
system.
Mr. Mansourian stated that the City's model accounts for the existing volume of vehicles and projects
approved and not built to ensure that allocations are based on actual numbers. For PPP, when projects
were approved, these numbers were added to existing volumes to ensure they were accounted for. Being
reserved they would not be reallocated for that period of time; however, should the application be
withdrawn the capacity could be assigned to another applicant.
Noting the 1-580 could provide relief to traffic congestion at Kerner and Bellam, Councilmember Levine
questioned whether there was a sense of what that could absorb.
Mr. Mansourian explained that no new data had been collected since it opened last week, noting an
improvement takes approximately six months for traffic to sort itself out and data collection is conducted to
update the model. Noting the last eighteen months had too many diversions to collect data he stated that
by May and June, 2011, good data could be collected.
Councilmember Levine stated that aside from the over $2 million in traffic mitigation fees, one of the earlier
charts indicated there was a $300,000 fee for street maintenance.
Mr. Mansourian confirmed it was a roadway impact fee because during construction heavy vehicles
damaged roadways.
Councilmember Levine questioned whether that amount of money was only intended to cover road repairs
for damages occurring during construction, but not long-term due to heavy trucks carrying goods.
Mr. Mansourian clarified that this was a city-wide fee going towards the annual overlay project, together
with other sources, such as gas tax.
Having spoken with a colleague on the Cotati City Council concerning developments such as the Target
store, Councilmember Levine reported that Cotati had recently approved a Lowe's store and the
Councilmember indicated one of her regrets was that they had not put into place any protections for the city
CC 12-06-2010
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/06/2010 Page 592
if Lowe's were to close. He inquired as to what remedies San Rafael could put into place for such an
eventuality.
Ms. Mackle stated it would be privately -owned property and she was not aware of what could be done in
that case.
Mr. Epstein stated that presumably the property owner would be motivated to succeed with the property
and if that was not the case, to re -tenant it with another successful use; however, he was unaware of any
method by which the City could exact some other requirement to try to plan for that possibility.
Councilmember Heller commended the Planning Commission for their thoughtful questions and noted the
Planning Commission was a wonderful place to start in beginning to look at a project. She requested
clarification on economic protection.
Mr. Epstein stated that by what Councilmember Heller was referring to the idea would be basing a City
Council decision on some desire to protect existing businesses or types of existing businesses, which
would present state and federal constitutional concerns regarding that type of economic protectionism, the
validity of which he would have concerns about.
Noting many of the written comments addressed police protection, Councilmember Heller noted Chief of
Police Odetto had investigated Target stores at Albany, Novato and Pinole and could discuss his findings.
Mr. Schutz stated the Environmental Impact Report discussed public safety, and while it did not find
significant impacts, he believed Chief Odetto should have an opportunity to address the issue directly.
Chief Odetto stated he had looked into nearby cities of similar size having a Target store and having
discussed traffic issues with Mr. Mansourian, he reported no significant impact to response time in that
area. He identified calls for service in a calendar year for the three cities studied:
City
Novato
Rohnert Park
Albany
San Rafael Home Depot
Target calls for service
55
59
98
47
22,000 calls for service
47,000 (population)
27,000 (population)
41,000 calls for service
Mayor Boro noted the impact construction had on Canal residents for the past couple of years, and in
particular, the past couple of months with the 1-580 Connector Project, all of which was done with the
purpose of not only making traffic better in that area but in the City as a whole. He suggested staff give
consideration to possibly during the hours of 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. imposing a 'No
Left Turn' from that site redirecting traffic from Bellam.
Stephanie Plante, President Cal -Pox and owner of the proposed Target site noted support binders had
been submitted to the City Clerk for distribution to the City Council this evening.
Ms. Plante reported that the land had been in her family for more than 40 years and she acknowledged
company founder, and her grandfather, Martin Bramante, who operated the land as a landfill for many
years.
Since its closure in the late 1980s, they had worked hard to redevelop the property, noting a portion was
donated to the City and was now a part of the Jean and John Starkweather Memorial Park. Ms. Plante
reported that Cal -Pox had worked with the City to find the right fit for the rest of the commercial property
and in her eleven years a president, countless meetings were held concerning the best uses for the site. In
2006, the City's PSP process identified this location as appropriate for a Target store. Since then, a
number of challenges had been worked through, adjusting plans to address City and community requests.
Thanking the City Council and staff for their time and commitment, Ms. Plante expressed the hope that the
project would be approved this evening.
Diane Henderson, Land Use Planner, Cal -Pox, reported that in 1992 she began working on this property,
noting Bob Wright, TWM Architects, began work on this site in 1984. Many options had been explored,
including a Costco store, senior housing, driving range, hotel light industrial/office park and auto center and
in 1996 PSP was approved to proceed with the Target development.
CC 12-06-2010
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/06/2010 Page 593
Ms. Henderson recalled that in 1993 the City Council made the very difficult and wise decision to approve
the Shoreline Center Master Plan, which created the parcels, together with the Home Depot store. She
indicated that on that occasion the Council Chambers was filled with Jackson's Hardware employees and
their families who were in opposition to Home Depot; however, the City Council made the difficult decision
to approve the store. Ms. Henderson noted that today, nearly fifteen years since Home Depot opened its
doors, Jackson's Hardware continues to flourish as a very important part of San Rafael's retail economy.
Acknowledging the hard work of staff, she noted that after many hours of deliberation, the Planning
Commission recommended that the City Council approve the project.
John Dewes, Regional Development Manager, Target Corporation, Minneapolis, reported that the project
had gone through an exhaustive process — to date 12 public hearings were held, including Design Review
Board, Planning Commission and the City Council at different phases. Countless meetings had taken
place with City staff, including detailed comments, letters, modifications on the project, and a joint meeting
with the State Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) and the Marin County Environmental Health
Services. Mr. Dewes stated Target initiated that meeting because the site had been a landfill site. A
significant number of meetings also took place with community-based groups, together with a series of
meetings with various Canal -based community groups, including an informational meeting several years
ago to discuss Target's hiring procedures, job and career opportunities, etc. He indicated they also met
with the adjacent Homeowners' Association, the Marin Builders' Association, San Rafael Chamber of
Commerce — the last two of which were provided an in-depth analysis of the project and both had
recommended its approval.
Referring to the site plan on display, Mr. Dewes noted changes and modifications:
• Shoreline Parkway — building set back 37.5 -feet — tripled on both sides to 122 -feet from property line
Further access to be installed with a dedicated series of parking spaces
• Landscaping enhanced around the perimeter
• Outdoor seating area with enclosed glass walls and a roof created
• Building design modifications of approximately $1.5 million
• Parking — 50 spaces removed. Parking Reserve created for approximately 40 vehicles creating more
buffering to the Shoreline Parkway, with a further 10-12 spaces on the opposite side
• Landscape Easement Area — Target to install and maintain landscaping during the course of the lease
• Roundabout at Shoreline Parkway — Target to irrigate, landscape and maintain this area
Noting this was required to be a LEED certified store, Mr. Dewes believed it would be the first LEED Gold
certified store of over 100,000 square -feet in the State of California and the entire Country. Electrical
generation and solar panels would be installed, together with electric charging stations in the parking lot.
Brian Treber, Senior Regional Real Estate Manager, Target Corporation, stated that in 2009, 370,000
transactions were tracked at the Novato Target store from southern Marin County residents. He reported
that since 1946 as part of their corporate charter, they gave 5% of pre-tax profit to charity and in 2009,
Target donated over $33,000 to San Rafael schools and non-profit organizations. Taken aback by the
comment from the Planning Commission about community benefits, Mr. Treber indicated Target believes
that the community benefits for the project are extremely strong.
Mr. Treber commented that the Gold LEED certification was an extreme accomplishment, the cost of which
was over $1.5 million over the cost of regular Target stores. Target had worked with the DRB to create a
unique store for San Rafael, noting embellishments on the outside of the building cost over $1.5 million.
Mr. Treber stated that the site design was probably more important because Target had never constructed
on such a poor site -- 12 -feet of cap, 45 -feet approximately of landfill and 150 -200 -feet of Bay Mud before
getting down to bedrock. Therefore constructing on this property entailed installing pilings to create a
structural platform on which the building would sit, surrounded by a parking lot. He estimated the cost to be
$10 million to bring the site up to a constructible standard.
With regard to employment, Mr. Treber estimated the store would have between 200-250 full-time
equivalent positions with competitive wages and benefits. He reported that, once open, total property tax
would rise to $450,000 annually. The $675,000 annual sales tax was San Rafael's share; however, the
total sales tax generated from this project would be $3.8 million and additionally, Target would pay
$225,000 for traffic improvements together with $775,000 to the affordable housing fund.
With regard to comments from the Planning Commission meeting Mr. Treber stated that as a successful
business over the last 45 -plus years they tried very hard to create a return for shareholders in large part by
CC 12-06-2010
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/06/2010 Page 594
growing the business and building new stores — spending on average $5 billion annually, based on a very
sophisticated sales -estimating system. Proprietary as far as its mechanics, Mr. Treber stated it was
sufficiently accurate for shareholders to be confident a good return could be generated on investment.
Regarding traffic, Mr. Treber reported that Mr. Mansourian was insistent real traffic data was used. Albany
being the closest stand-alone store, he noted this store would average 20% more sales than the San
Rafael store; however, those numbers were used. As a lot of conservatism was built into these traffic
impact models he stated they were confident a traffic issue would not be created.
Regarding grocery, Mr. Treber reported that food had been an integral part of Target's business model
since 1962. The biggest difference between the P -Fresh model and former Target stores was that a lot of
grocery products were sprinkled around the store. The primary focus of Target's remodeling was to
congregate the food items in one location to make it more convenient for guests to shop. In Albany, prior to
the remodel to the P -Fresh model, approximately 8% of the floor area was allocated to grocery items —
10% subsequent to the remodel. Therefore, while there was prepackaged fresh produce and meats, the
use was still ancillary to the business.
In conclusion, Mr. Treber stated they were proud to bring a Gold LEED certified building to San Rafael and
proud to be proposing a development on a brown field site they considered extraordinarily difficult to
develop.
Mayor Boro invited Herb Moran to make his PowerPoint presentation.
Herb Moran, 50 -year resident of San Rafael, representing the "Keep It Local San Rafael" group, stated the
group included local business owners, neighborhood leaders, community activists, small business owners,
Chamber of Commerce members, building trades members, union and environmentalists, all sharing the
common goal to not have a Target store built in San Rafael.
As to why a Target store should be located in San Rafael, Mr. Moran reported that the group concluded it
was because of the alleged sales tax generation of $675,000 and the possibility of more jobs in the
community. He indicated it was interesting to note Target bought into the $675,000 figure because at the
Planning Commission meeting Target representatives went to great lengths to distance themselves from
this figure, making it clear it was a City number and because of confidential and proprietary information
they could not commit to that; however, the question now was whether they would guarantee this figure.
Questioning whether this would be new revenue, Mr. Moran commented it was well documented that when
big -box retail came to a city there was a certain amount of attrition.
Mr. Moran noted no discussion had taken place about potential loss of revenue in the downtown area
because of parking. Based upon information provided by the City over $4.3 million in parking revenue is
generated in the City of San Rafael, of which a substantial portion emanated from the downtown area.
With a certain rate of attrition Mr. Moran questioned how much of that money would disappear and whether
it would offset the $675,000 resulting in a zero gain.
With regard to rapid expansion, should Target decide to open a further store, for example in the Gateway
Center in Marin City, Mr. Moran questioned whether San Rafael would be in a similar situation to Novato,
should this project go forward.
Unsure about the motivation, Mr. Moran stated it appeared coincidental that an extremely motivated staff
was answering questions from the public. He recalled that as a member of the Citizens Advisory
Committee on Redevelopment it was not easy to get projects pushed through; however, in this instance, it
appeared staff had ready answers to questions from the public.
Noting Target indicated they would recruit 85% of their jobs locally, Mr. Moran commented that they were
not guaranteeing jobs would be generated locally, rather recruit. He believed the proposed 250 jobs were
not the type of jobs mentioned in General Plan 2020, rather they were predominantly low-paying jobs,
mostly on a part-time basis. He noted one Councilmember contacted by the group commented that these
could be considered second jobs for local area residents.
Mr. Moran stated that at the Planning Commission meeting an influential factor was the submission of 200+
names by a local resident of people looking for jobs; however, it turned out that these were collected by
someone working for the developer standing in front of St. Raphael's Church, without the consent or
knowledge of the pastor, soliciting people to sign for jobs for the community. Mr. Moran reported that this
same person approached the Canal Alliance for their endorsement and was rebuffed.
CC 12-06-2010
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/06/2010 Page 595
Expressing appreciation for the City Council not taking action this evening, Mr. Moran stated that the City
Council would ultimately be asked to provide a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which essentially
was carte blanch. As presently structured, this City Council had never been asked to issue a Statement of
Overriding Considerations and in fact, based on research, only three such statements had been issued by
the San Rafael City Council in over ten years, all three of which were for residential projects presumably
included in affordable housing projects. While understanding the public good, Mr. Moran stated this was
acceding to a large, national corporate concern which was not willing at this point in time to offer anything
in the way of guarantees.
Mr. Moran reported that San Rafael went through two major visions for the downtown and North San
Rafael areas which were very successful and it appeared as though this project could just potentially
jeopardize both of these very successful projects. It was contrary to General Plan 2020, requiring an
amendment and rezoning, and a huge issue with traffic existed. He quoted from the staff report: "this
project results in a traffic condition that is a significant, unavoidable impact for which there is not mitigation."
Mr. Moran noted this conclusion was reached before the grocery component was included. He indicated
that the internal documents from the City of San Rafael optimistically state that this area could expand retail
as Target is an anchor store, thus creating more traffic.
Mr. Moran stated that the EIR did not address safety and first responder issues in the most dense area of
the County, from both a commercial and a residential standpoint, and as mentioned this evening, there
were mitigations such as the previously considered Grange and Irene overpass. However, because of
expense issues, these would not be considered in this case. Noting this project was flawed by CEQA
standards Mr. Moran requested that the City Council give it serious consideration.
Mark Wolfe, CEQA and Land Use Attorney, explained that "Keep It Local San Rafael" contacted him a
short time ago to review the Environmental Analysis packet and to offer his firm's opinion to the extent to
which the analysis passed CEQA muster. Noting this was a very difficult land use decision being faced by
many cities throughout the state in difficult economic times, he stated that ultimately it was land use that
unquestionably was an automobile -dependent intense land use the likes of which does not exist in San
Rafael. It would increase vehicle miles travelled at a time when the General Plan, SB 375 and AB 32 all
called for re -managing land use at the local level to provide for uses that downplay dependency on
automobiles and vehicle miles travelled impacts in order to achieve Greenhouse Gas Emissions standards
while at the same time, fostering livable, walkable, pedestrian -oriented, bicycle -reliant communities and
commercial areas that they support.
Mr. Wolfe stated that the City Council would have to decide whether the purported economic benefit was
worth what could be sacrificed by allowing such a use in San Rafael. He stated that, in order to decide
whether to adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the City Council needed and constituents
deserved the highest quality, most accurate, most trenchant investigation and disclosure impacts, pro and
con, of this project, and there were several areas in which this was not the case as they read the original
and Final EIR and addendum. Mr. Wolfe reported that they had outlined deficiencies in their letter:
On the topic of public safety, Mr. Wolfe noted Chief Odetto reported that he obtained calls for service data
from three other Target stores. Coincidentally, the Institute of Transportation Engineers which publishes
the compendium of trip generation rates recommends that in departing from reliance on their trip
generation estimates, at least three and preferably five data points are obtained. He stated it should be
noted that the trip generation rates they publish are themselves a compendium of statistics based on
several dozen samples of similar retail uses across the entire country and it was generally preferred to rely
on those in terms of estimating what trip generation would be for this project. Mr. Wolfe stated that trip
generation was the bedrock, the key data point that permits determining the level of service impacts at
intersections, queuing problems at various left and right-hand turn lanes, etc. Mr. Wolfe stated that in this
case there was not a statistically defensible effort to estimate what that would be because one store only
was evaluated; therefore, he believed a new analysis should be done that at the very least looked at the
other Target stores in the region.
Regarding Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Mr. Wolfe stated that, regardless of whether the new Bay Area Air
Quality Management District standards for Greenhouse Gas reductions legally apply to the project, the fact
remained that these were evaluated in the addendum and presented to the City Council. The City Council
had to make a decision based on what they were told the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts of the
project would be. He indicated that the original EIR stated that fewer than 5% of the trips to the project
would be on public transit and it acknowledged also that very few customer trips would be by bicycles or
pedestrians. He expressed doubt that shoppers would bike or walk to the Target store, as it relied heavily
on automobiles.
CC 12-06-2010
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/06/2010 Page 596
Mr. Wolfe reported that when the new BAAQMD GHG standards came into play, the addendum redid the
analysis and this time basically indicated that 19% of the total trips to the project store would be on transit,
bikes or by pedestrians; however, he believed this defied logic and common sense and there was no
analysis in the addendum to justify this. The study was new to the addendum and he believed the City
Council and public deserved the opportunity to review and comment on this brand new conclusion that
dramatically increased the claims on non -automobile usage for the project in a public forum. Mr. Wolfe
stated the fact that it came forward as an addendum meant there was no opportunity for the public to
review and comment; therefore, this was a further reason to carry out a focused supplemental EIR to
correct some of the defects identified — at the very least a traffic analysis based on more than one statistical
sample and addressing the very serious question concerning the assumptions as to who would be
travelling to the project on bicycles, public transit and on foot.
Mr. Wolfe stated it appeared this was a General Plan amendment that would apply beyond this parcel of
land, and to the extent this was correct, the CEQA analysis needed to include some investigation and
disclosure of what the potential impacts could be as a result of the land use change.
Jonathan Frieman, Keep It Local San Rafael co-founder and co-founder of the Center for Corporate
Policies, located in Washington D.C., addressing corporate abuse and associated issues.
Mr. Frieman stated this was a big -box superstore the likes of which San Rafael had not dealt with in its
history. The EIR omits a fiscal impact evaluation which minimized the importance of a Community Impact
Report and denies and omits over a decade of solid academic research decrying big -box superstores;
therefore, it could not take into account community morale.
With regard to the $675,000 sales tax figure, Mr. Frieman stated this was an estimate and could not be
relied upon, noting studies demonstrated that the amount of total sales tax was unchanged because
consumers had only so much to spend and sales gains in one location were mirrored by losses elsewhere
— Novato reported they would lose 20% in sales tax. Mr. Frieman stated that the estimated sales tax figure
would be cut into by taking care of health costs of the part-time workers, most of whom would not be on
benefits and would seek healthcare from Marin County.
With regard to the estimated 250 jobs, Mr. Frieman stated it was known that job loss accompanies the
intrusion of big box superstores into an area. Using a PowerPoint slide he stated many studies indicated
that one and a half retail jobs were lost as existing business closed or downsized. Opening a big box store
reduced overall retail employment in the community by almost 3%. Mr. Frieman indicated that, due to
employment declines, retail earnings dropped by approximately 1.3%. Noting a 50% turnover usually
associated with these jobs on a year-to-year basis, he commented these were not living but slave wages.
Noting only 16% of the money spent at Target stayed in the local economy, whereas 32% spent at local
retailers returned to the local economy, Mr. Frieman stated studies showed that as much as one-third was
lost for that reason. He stated that $100 spent at Borders Books created a paltry $13 of local activity while
$100 spent at an independently owned bookstore created $45. He also noted that locally owned
businesses required far less land to produce an equivalent amount of economic activity.
Mr. Frieman reported studies had shown that big box stores lead to the closing of local businesses, noting
that in one community with such a store, one quarter of that community's retail outlets had closed within
two years.
Noting locally owned businesses within close proximity of that store had a 40% chance of closing he
inquired as to who would want to locate to such an area — big box superstores displace sales from other
city stores. Referring to a further slide, Mr. Frieman reported that studies also showed that communities
with big box stores had lower civic participation and voting, had higher rates of poverty, lower rates of home
ownership, higher crime rates and less resilience in times of adversity. On the issue of peak oil and current
cheap oil, Mr. Frieman reported that when energy prices began to rise, it would be difficult for Target to
maintain its predatory business model.
Mr. Frieman stated that community morale could not be measured, rather it was a quality or feeling that
permeated the essence of the entire community. He stated he was aware that Jeff Brusati, T&B Sports,
and Bill Daniels, United Market, make decisions not for their bottom line but to help the community,
whereas with Target, $45 - $65 million would leave the area, which was not the same as local businesses
doing something for the community on a daily basis.
CC 12-06-2010
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/06/2010 Page 597
Stuart Dubev, Baypoint Lagoon resident, identified on a map the corner of Kerner and Bellam Boulevards,
facing Baypoint Lagoon, and indicated residents watched a deterioration of congestion over the last five
years in the area — Mi Pueblo had added to this congestion - and he expressed disappointment that no
traffic analysis was done during construction in the area. He reported that it took twenty minutes to drive
four blocks to the freeway, which proved that the road system in the area was at capacity. Mr. Dubey
noted the EIR concluded that this store would cause significant and adverse impacts that could not be
mitigated on traffic, public safety and air quality, particularly focused on this intersection. Believing the
decision could have a profound negative impact on an entire community Mr. Dubey urged the City Council
to either vote "No" or stop the process pending a comprehensive study of all the negative impacts the store
would have on the community, including consideration of emergencies or something going wrong with the
store.
Sierra Salin, Fairfax, stated that a Target store would not revitalize the local economy, rather would take
funds out of the community.
Janice Gav, Canal resident, stated she believed Target would be a necessary good balance for the area
and community.
Tom Wilson, Executive Director, Canal Alliance, reported that over the past two years Canal Alliance had a
number of meetings with representatives from Target and at a meeting in October, 2008, Target officials
discussed the proposed store, together with the idea of partnering with local organizations to assist with
hiring and training their new workforce. Mr. Wilson listed the reasons for Canal Alliance's opposing the
store:
• Target had yet to commit to making a firm, substantive investment in the Canal community
• Offering non -living -wage jobs and access to inexpensive products was not sufficient
• Large corporate profits extracted without the appropriate amount of investment to compensate
• A Target store, similar to other chain outlets, would take away from the individual character which
is San Rafael's
• The store would increase traffic
Mr. Wilson urged the City Council to have an agreement with Target on specific items that would directly
benefit the Canal neighborhood.
Curtis Coleman stated that a huge portion of the population of San Rafael needs a Target store and it was
of vital importance that civic organizations served those people; he expressed appreciation for the work
done by staff on this issue.
Carolvn Lenert, Terra Linda, stated that this was not a landfill site rather an unregulated capped dump
which was at risk because the nearby levee was unregulated, private and sub -standard. Expected to drop
between 3 and 9 -feet, she stated it was the wrong place for any type of public use and believed a
Community Impact Report was necessary. Ms. Lenert stated that, unless the project met environmental,
economic and ethical tests, it was not sustainable.
Bill Scott, Building Trades Council President, noted Mr. Dewes, Target, indicated that Target does not have
a policy or practice of importing contractors or sub -contractors from out of state. He suggested that
perhaps Target could adopt a state -approved apprenticeship program to train people in the construction
industry. Mr. Scott submitted material detailing an apprenticeship policy already in place for several
different facilities in Marin County.
Judv Schriebman, stating she would not shop at Target, explained that being a big box store it would take
money from the community and it invested in causes she did not believe in, noting they donated $250,000
to an anti -gay, anti -women's rights candidate for governor. She stated she did not believe San Rafael's
community values included anti -gay, anti -women's right to choose or that Target's corporate culture was
supported by San Rafael's values.
Ms. Schriebman submitted three documents for the record relating to Target for the past five years
dumping hazardous waste, illegally into the landfill via dumpsters. Complaints were filed in Alameda
County and San Diego and a restraining order was issued ordering the 240 California stores to routinely
stop dumping hazardous waste that ends up in landfills. Reporting prosecutors contended that Target
routinely ignored the law to cut costs, she questioned this type of corporate culture being invited to San
Rafael and urged the City Council not to support the project.
CC 12-06-2010
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/06/2010 Page 598
Bruce Coale, San Rafael Bay and H&H Storage, stated the proposed Target store would be a great
convenience for residents and businesses, particularly in Central and East San Rafael, and would satisfy a
need currently not provided in this vicinity. Believing it would have a positive impact on the local economy,
Mr. Coale stated that Target in this location could be an anchor and stimulus for existing and new
businesses and he urged the City Council to support the project.
Larry Braaman, Mayor of Fairfax, stated he was present on behalf of the merchants of Fairfax and Ross
Valley, as well as a lot of constituents, who would be affected by the Target project. With the existing
stores in the region, he believed the shopping dollars would not be new, rather would come from Central
San Rafael and Southern Marin and he anticipated local San Rafael merchants, together with Fairfax
merchants, etc., being the losers. Not being a union operation, Mr. Bragman stated it would drive down
wages and draw tax and sales dollars away from local business and he requested that the City Council aim
San Rafael's future away from Target and support local business.
Marialana Sanchez, Community Liaison, Bahia Vista School, presented the City Council with more than
600 letters in support of the Target store, and requested that they vote to support the project's approval.
Rov Smith, San Rafael resident and former manager of Ecology House, concurring with Mr. Frieman's
comments, emphasized the inclusion of community character in a Community Impact Report and indicated
he did not support having a Target store in San Rafael.
Roberto Hernandez, PTA President, Bahia Vista School, representing Canal parents, stated they supported
Target because they would generate 200 more jobs for the community and they offered affordable
shopping.
Hillsman Heath stated she did not believe Target should be chosen because of the need to offer
inexpensive products to all income ranges and she did not consider integrity and ethical business
superficial and just the jurisdiction of rich people.
Dario D'Arriao, Director, Community Here, stated he supported Target and the jobs it would generate and
he urged the City Council to vote affirmatively.
Steve Patterson, Chair, Federation of San Rafael Neighborhoods, reported that he had yet to talk to one
neighborhood leader in this sphere who supported Target and he inquired whether San Rafael had
forgotten about its over -reliance on big -box retailers and auto dealerships, noting it was not possible to
purchase a domestic car in San Rafael, from which a tremendous amount of sales tax used to be
generated.
Mr. Patterson commented that in their recent campaigns some of the newer Councilmembers discussed
new financial models for generating sales tax; however, the City Council was now considering and
potentially approving a target store in East San Rafael. Questioning the benefit to citizens, he noted
General Plan 2020 would need to be amended, low-paying jobs would be offered and he questioned why
there was no discussion on the grocery component in the EIR. Mr. Patterson urged the City Council to
make the correct decision.
Laura Tollen, Baypoint Lagoon homeowner, submitted a letter to the City Council outlining benefits of the
store together with responses to some of the concerns, particularly with regard to traffic, impact on small
businesses and the grocery issue. Impressed with the process and work on both sides, she indicated she
did not envy the City Council in making their decision; however, she believed they had been provided with
some very thoughtful and detailed information. Weighing the good and bad sides, she stated she was
personally persuaded of more good than bad and that there were people in the Baypoint Lagoon
neighborhood who did support the project.
Steve Burdo, concurring with Ms. Schrieber's remarks, stated that public perception had permitted Target
to escape the scrutiny that appeared to follow Wal-Mart. Noting Target refused to disclose wage details,
which was not acceptable to the public, he believed the reason for this was that Wal-Mart workers on
average made more than Target employees and he suggested that if Target workers were paid a living
wage the company would be unionized.
Encouraging Chief of Police Odetto to look into Target's parking security package, Mr. Burdo urged a no
vote.
CC 12-06-2010
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/06/2010 Page 599
Rick Wells, San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, stated that the Chamber Board voted to support this
development earlier this year. The vote of support of the Target project was taken pursuant to extensive
research, fact-finding interviews, presentations and careful consideration and the decision was not reached
without significant discussion and deliberation. Presentations were made by both advocates and
community members who opposed the project; however, the consensus was that the project would add
valuable jobs and significant tax revenues to the City. Additionally, the Chamber of Commerce values the
commitment from Target to make significant contributions to the economy, community organizations, non-
profits and education and supports economic vitality in San Rafael.
Mr. Wells stated that the Chamber Board of over twenty individuals was made up of diverse business
leaders reflecting large and small businesses, for profit and non-profit organizations and many long-time
Marin residents, and the vast majority agreed that the project would be beneficial to San Rafael.
Reporting that Target commits a portion of its gross store sales to support local non -profits, Mr. Wells
indicated their research showed that the majority of that was handed out through corporate giving at a
national level, or self-directed school Scrip programs, and the Chamber was encouraging Target to
increase their direct involvement in San Rafael and Marin. They encourage Target to be innovative and
seek ways to minimize any traffic -related issues, i.e., the San Rafael store could serve as a model with
shuttle service for shoppers and employees.
Mr. Wells stated research indicated that Target was not a member of many local Chambers of Commerce,
noting long-term Chamber membership helps the local business community as a whole. The San Rafael
Chamber of Commerce encourages Target to participate, be involved and be a leader in more ways than
sales and this important project would contribute significantly to the local economy through jobs, tax
revenue and consumer choice. Mr. Wells stated that in supporting this project, the San Rafael Chamber of
Commerce supports economic vitality.
Dan Benedetti, Board Chairman, Clover-Stornetta Farms — Petaluma, stated he was concerned about the
direction Target was considering pertaining to food, specifically local food or an absence thereof. From his
visit to the Rohnert Park Target store recently, he observed no food from Northern California, not to
mention Marin County.
Mr. Benedetti reported that he supports 26 dairies in Sonoma and Marin Counties, eight organic dairies in
Marin and Sonoma Counties and all of his organic milk comes from Marin and Sonoma Counties, whereas
the organic milk sold at Target comes from the City of Industry, probably via Idaho, which was a huge
footprint on a so-called sustainable product and he suggested that the City Council and staff look seriously
at the food component of Target. Marin and Sonoma counties had a very strong and growing agricultural
component because of retailers supporting the local economy.
Eva Selig., Mill Valley, stated she believed the Bramonte family and Target had met all of the requirements,
cleared many hurdles and demonstrated a good faith effort to adjust this project plan to suit the needs of
the community. She challenged the opposition to come up with a positive suggestion of what could be
done differently with this land and she believed the small businesses who indicated Target would hurt their
business were being somewhat short-sighted and selfish.
Roger Roberts, Marin Conservation League, issued a reminder that the FEIR had already pointed out that
all the other project alternatives for this site were and are environmentally superior to the proposed project
and the question now was whether or not this project had benefits outweighing its unavoidable
environmental and potential socio-economic impacts.
Recognizing the City of San Rafael had budget problems, and that this project's potential sales tax
revenues could provide significant budgetary relief, Mr. Roberts questioned whether these benefits
outweighed the significant impacts that could not be mitigated; however, at this point he believed them to
be purely speculative and the actual annual realized sales tax revenues could be less than the $675,000
projected.
Noting the anticipated 250 local hires, Mr. Roberts stated there was no commitment on the part of Target
with respect to the number of full-time employees with full-time benefits versus part-time employees with no
benefits and he questioned how many local hires would be enrolled in management training positions.
Mr. Roberts stated that reportedly Target would make local charitable contributions of 5% of pre-tax
income, which perhaps could not turn out to be as significant as anticipated. It was likely to be calculated
CC 12-06-2010
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/06/2010 Page 600
on an after -depreciation and interest cost basis and the City did not have any idea of Target's transfer
pricing practices and where it made and took its profits. He stated San Rafael might well be better off
negotiating a percentage of contributions as an override on total revenues against the gross revenues of
the project.
Questioning what would happen should this project not meet revenue and rate of return standards and
ultimately close, Mr. Roberts believed the City would be left with a major vacancy problem, difficult to fix
and re -use. He believed the City should clarify and establish conditions of approval that address this
possible eventuality with clearly understood obligations by Target in the event of a future closure.
Mr. Roberts stated that the Marin Conservation League concludes that the real proposed project benefits
were not clearly established and were insufficient to override the listed significant and unavoidable
environmental impacts that could not be mitigated; therefore, they urged the City Council not to approve the
project as presented.
Janine Aurichio, Mill Valley, stated that as a sole proprietor when business was slow last year it was
necessary for her to get a part-time job in retail, and she commented that there was no shame in earning
"slave" wages..
As a brand manager Ms. Aurichio reported that she worked for a manufacturer who was a vendor of
Target. She found them to be a culture of innovation and a favorite customer. Believing a vital community
to be a layered one, she indicated she would continue to shop at P -Fresh, San Anselmo, Mill Valley
second-hand shop, Anne Taylor Loft as well as Target. and she urged the City Council to vote
affirmatively.
Melanv Tavlor, San Rafael resident, stated she opposed the Target project on the grounds that it was
counter to San Rafael's own General Plan. Goal 9 of the Economic Vitality element stated that "San Rafael
will maintain zoning for industrial areas to the extent feasible to prevent a loss of industrial business."
Rather than a big -box store with solar panels, she suggested a company that made solar panels. Goal 11
states that "little vacant land remains in San Rafael. Further development will have to be extremely
creative, utilizing infill wherever possible to obtain the highest and best use of our limited space." Ms.
Taylor questioned whether big box retail was the highest and best use or whether a better use could be an
Autodesk, Fireman's Fund, etc. — the types of companies that could offer employees good jobs with
opportunities for advancement and a future.
Ms. Taylor stated that General Plans were created for guidance when cities were presented with difficult
decisions such as this. Further quoting from the Economic Vision she stated that "while respectful for the
free market's effectiveness, the City is willing to assert its authority to stimulate changes that are consistent
with the City's goals." She stated that this project was not consistent with the City's goals and she
requested the City Council to assert this authority and reject the proposal.
Felicia Gaston, Marin City resident, reported that she had been running her own non-profit program serving
children throughout Marin County and the targeted low-income areas and was an avid Target shopper for
the children she served. Referring to pages 69 and 70 of the staff report regarding employment and
charitable giving, she noted Southern Marin was not listed.
Adrian Simi, Carpenters' Local 35, San Rafael, while remaining neutral on the store, offered whatever
assistance they could in hiring locally should the store be built. He indicated that to ensure
apprenticeships, good -paying jobs and local contractors a union general contractor should be used.
J.D. Sullivan, Baypoint Lagoon resident, co-founder of the Bank of Marin in 1989 and CEO until his
retirement in 1998, urged the City Council to approve the Target store project, as it would generate jobs
and tax revenues, remove cars from the roads and provide products for people who could not afford to
shop at bigger, fancier Marin County stores.
Georqe Mills, San Rafael resident, stated his concern was with traffic — the hairpin turn taking a left turn
onto East Francisco Boulevard toward the 1-580 exit, and quoting from page 312, paragraph 21 of the staff
report: "Francisco Boulevard East and 1-580 Westbound on-ramp" he stated it did not discuss the line of
sight, or crucial traffic issues at that point. He believed the area would be highly impacted, and noting the
current LOS at A, he questioned what the LOS would be, should the development take place. Believing
this issue needed further evaluation, he stated a retail store at this location was very questionable.
CC 12-06-2010
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/06/2010 Page 601
Casev Mazzoni, on behalf of the Marin Builders Association's Board of Directors expressed support for the
Target project. While all members might not agree with this endorsement, she reported that the Association
stood in strong support of the industry, tax revenue and a thriving community. Target would create
construction jobs in a difficult time for the industry. it would bring in tax revenue and provide new jobs.
Noting Target committed 5% of its income to support communities, she reported that last year, the Novato
store provided $33,000 in charitable contribution support to schools and local non -profits.
Commenting on population growth, Dwight Steves, San Rafael resident, stated that with no population
growth in Marin County, this was a zero-sum situation. Money going into this Target would take money
from the Novato Target, Northgate Center, Central San Rafael and Southern Marin. Noting Mi Pueblo had
been in business in San Rafael for nine months he inquired as to follow-up on job creation for San Rafael
residents. As there were nine other markets in a two-mile radius of his home, he did not see the need for
a further food store in the area. Noting money from the Target store would go to Minnesota and traffic
issues needed to be addressed, Mr. Steves urged the City Council not to approve the project.
Elissa Giambastiani, San Rafael resident, indicated that, as stated by Diane Henderson, when Home Depot
was proposed in 1998, similar arguments were raised. She noted many in the building industry were very
fearful they would be put out of business; however, this was not realized. The Target store would probably
affect Kohl's and Sears rather than businesses on Fourth Street or in San Anselmo. She believed the
biggest competitor to United Markets was probably Costco.
Ms. Giambastiani stated that, because of decisions made by state government cities had been forced into
the fiscalization of land use and must rely now on sales tax revenue and she could come up with hundreds
of uses for the $675,000 in sales tax revenue Target would generate.
Noting a Marin Independent Journal reporter recently stated that the City Council should look for new
sustainable ideas for fiscal health while offering no suggestions, Mr. Giambastiani stated that, had there
been any, the City Council would have adopted them already. Commenting that the Canal neighborhood
which had been sorely lacking in options would now have an affordable department store and some of its
residents might get jobs, she urged the City Council to approve Target's application.
Joel Eis, Downtown Business Improvement District member, stated he was not in attendance at the
meeting where neutrality was voted on this issue, and commenting that the predatory and self-interested
policies of Corporate America resulted in the current situation, he believed that if the City were not in the
current desperate situation, this proposal would not be receiving a serious hearing.
Mr. Eis urged the City Council to request that 70% of the jobs proposed by Target be good -paying, full-
time jobs with benefits, that a childcare center be built on the space, a $20 million bond from Target against
leaving the community and traffic improvements in the area. He believed the building was bad feng shui
Lee Jordan, 60 -year San Rafael resident, suggested that this issue had generated a lot of emotional
opposition because of grossly exaggerated statements with respect to the purported effect the location of
the Target store would have on the community. He reported that approximately 500 signatures from
opponents generated by a website petition authored by Stuart Dubey made the following representations:
• "The Target store will be constructed in our Starkweather Park wetlands" — which was a falsehood
• "Target will have a significant negative impact on hundreds of local San Rafael small businesses "
— meaning every small business located in the City of San Rafael and a gross exaggeration
• "Your help is needed to stop Target's fast track attempts for approval" — project in process for more
than four years
• "Target will gridlock thousands of households" — approximately 500 households in East San Rafael
where vehicle ownership is concentrated
Having analyzed a sampling of the first 50 signatures, Mr. Jordan reported that 28 (56%) were from
persons living outside of Marin County and of those 28, 22 were from outside the State of California and of
that 22, 9 were from outside the United States; therefore, he did not believe this petition to be
representative of the feelings of the community.
With regard to the issue of competition, Mr. Jordan questioned whether it was proper for the City of San
Rafael to take on the role of dictating who would be allowed to go into competition with existing businesses
in the community. In retrospect he questioned whether the City Council would have opposed Macy's,
Emporium or Borders because of competition with existing stores and whether Target, a large national
CC 12-06-2010
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/06/2010 Page 602
corporation, was adequate basis for denial. Indicating that this bridge was crossed long ago, he reported
that five out of the ten largest retailers in the United States, all corporate entities, now do business in San
Rafael — Best Buy, Home Depot, Walgreens, CVS Pharmacy and Sears.
Marcia Holmquist stated she conducted a poll on Fourth Street which resulted in 7 for Target, 41 against
and 5 neutral. With regard to jobs, she reported having carried out a physical count of Target workers in
Novato and found 25 to 45 employees on a given day working for low wages in unskilled jobs, which did
not compute to the projected 250 jobs. Ms. Holmquist stated that this type of store promotes a huge trade
imbalance, outsourcing manufacturing jobs and giving their dollars to their shareholders. She submitted
material to the City Clerk.
Armando Chan, San Rafael resident, stated that the community desperately needed jobs as many were
unemployed. He urged the City Council to approve the Target project and noted that in difficult economic
times, the City could not afford to deny the more than 200 jobs for its residents.
Darrvl Wriaht, Baypoint Lagoon resident stated she moved there before the Loop impacted the traffic at
Bellam and Kerner Boulevards. New businesses had increased traffic at this intersection in the last year
and a half and she reported having spent twenty minutes waiting for multiple lights to exit the Baypoint
Lagoon area both morning and afternoon. She noted rear -end collisions as a result of traffic backing up on
the freeway at the Sir Francis Drake Boulevard exit and she urged the City Council to vote against the
Target store.
Dick Ghilotti congratulated the City on building the Kerner District, as well as the Bermonte family for
building the Shoreline Industrial Park. He believed the economics of the project would be beneficial in
generating construction jobs and sales tax revenue would be helpful to the City, and he wholly supported
the Target project.
Tanva Levv, Santa Venetia, stated she believed big box stores had a different corporate culture and made
their decisions about the environment, workers and what they do in the community from different
standpoints. Regarding Target allegedly having employees discard toxic materials into trash compacters to
be hauled to the dump, Ms. Levy stated that attorneys from cities and counties around the state did not file
suit lightly — three years of negotiation between Target, state agencies and the State Attorney General took
place, during which time they failed to establish a program to train their employees to recognize materials,
handle them safely and discard of them in a safe place. Should Target ignore environmental and state law
on something so straightforward, she questioned how they would make their other decisions concerning
the environment.
Gary Phillips, incoming Chair, San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, reported that as mentioned by Chamber
of Commerce President Rich Wells, the application was reviewed very carefully, meeting with proponents
and opponents several times and going to a vote. He explained the Chamber of Commerce comprised of
large businesses, banks, car dealers, construction companies, together with small business such as
jewelry stores, smaller contractors, law firms, etc., and the vote interestingly, resulted in 22 in favor with 2
opposed. Also of interest was the Planning Commission's vote in favor — 5:2.
Mr. Phillips reported that the Chamber considered traffic, particularly Mr. Mansourian's input, convenience,
additional sales tax and jobs — noting many residents needed employment. On the issue of business
competition, he recalled having been a member of the Planning Commission when the Home Depot project
was presented. The vote was 6:1 — he being the one opposing member, which he now believed was
misplaced in that Home Depot was advantageous for the City of San Rafael. Regarding sales tax, Mr.
Phillips acknowledged the City's need for additional sales tax revenues to support roads and public safety.
Believing many smaller businesses could be affected by the Target store, Mr. Phillips reported that the
Chamber of Commerce felt an obligation to ease the impact as much as possible. As incoming Chair, he
committed that the Chamber of Commerce would hold forums for those who might be impacted and assist
them in ways perhaps Jackson's Hardware knew better than most. They had competed successfully with
Home Depot, offering good service, good quality product and pleasant staff.
Mr. Phillips stated that the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce had voted strongly in favor of allowing
Target to come to San Rafael and he encouraged the City Council to support them.
Andv Bachich, Andy's Market, believing Target was not the right fit, reported that he was working hard to
bring back the old San Rafael, such as the Sun Valley Market. He found it difficult to believe that sales
CC 12-06-2010
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/06/2010 Page 603
would total $43 million in 135,000 square -feet because Trader Joe's before building their second store was
averaging $40 million in 10,000 square -feet. Mr. Bacach stated he would find it difficult to bring back the
culture of San Rafael as it was impossible to buy at the rate Target sold and he urged the City Council to
give consideration to these issues.
Grea Hanson, Vice -President, Cal -Pox, stated his family had a business on Grand Avenue, Novato when
Costco and Target opened; however, sales had quadrupled during the time prior to selling the business.
This was achieved through sales, service, deliveries, and through personal attention, which he believed the
downtown businesses of San Rafael could take note of and understand they had something to offer that
Target could not, and that both could succeed and flourish.
He believed in the long term this Target would be a good addition to San Rafael.
Matt Butler, San Rafael resident, stated he feared City officials would use fantasy economics, bad math
and lack of foresight to justify bringing Target to San Rafael. Stating jobs were about wages, he cautioned
about confusing jobs paying a living wage and benefits with ones that do not — Target employees would
need taxpayers to fill the gap. He stated the choice was not between jobs and welfare rather whether
taxpayers would subsidize Target's labor so that it could compete with local businesses paying a living
wage.
With regard to the proposed 250 jobs, Mr. Butler stated Target could run the store with 60 full-time
employees; however, they wanted part-time employees desperate for more hours and money and would
not attempt to unionize or organize. Mr. Butler questioned the projected $675,000 in sales tax revenue and
stated that Target not only took all the profit from the retail end of commerce, but also drained all profit from
production and distribution, noting Wal-Mart, Costco, Home Depot and many other large corporations used
the same model.
Questioning how this corporate model benefitted Marin County or America, short or long-term, Mr. Butler
expressed the belief that one of the largest threats to America was corporate welfare and corporate
America.
Thomas Youna., San Rafael resident, stated he drives that route daily and sometimes was frustrated with
traffic; however, he believed Target was correct for the City. Observing weeds, un -swept streets, etc., he
stated he would like to see East San Rafael have the same vitality and breadth of life as the rest of San
Rafael. While not a fan of big box retail, he believed Target would help the City move forward.
Ken Houser, Bret Harte resident, opposing the Target store stated he was trying to teach his children about
consumerism and how to shop locally. He had seen the demise of Yardbirds to Home Depot, and he was
trying to teach his children to shop at stores supporting local schools, i.e., Andy's Market, T&B Sports, H&J
Tire. Owning a factory in Richmond, while driving home through traffic gridlock he would not be pleased to
observe a Target sign.
Jeff Rhodes, San Rafael resident, supporting the project, questioned the store being built on an existing
dump site, as it appeared there was an opportunity to provide a reasonable and meaningful cap as
remediation, and whether this would in fact reduce the amount of leachate and other pollutants in the
environment. Should the amount of vehicle trips be reduced on Highway 101 going to Novato, he
questioned whether this would have an impact on air quality also and whether removing shopping trips
from the Highway 101 corridor would result in a significant regional benefit in freeing up capacity for other
trips.
With regard to grocery purchases versus other goods, Mr. Rhodes stated he believed these were shared
trips. Believing many land uses were appropriate and desired for this site and noting a society driven by the
marketplace, costs of products, etc., he did not believe there always was a choice. This could be the best
use currently and in the scheme of things it might only be an interim use; the City was a growing, organic
thing constantly changing and this was an example of a potential interim use; however, potentially it
remediated a bad environmental situation. In the event Target failed, the site would be remediated for
some other productive use and in the meantime, those local industries and businesses competing with
Target would be stronger and better as a result.
Herman Blustein, San Rafael, stated it saddened him to watch Target come to San Rafael with a very well -
honed playbook. Currently with 1,683 stores, they promised jobs to those without and tax revenues to
cities and he believed they had plans to build a store in Marin City. In the end weighing everything, the real
CC 12-06-2010
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/06/2010 Page 604
decision concerned Fourth Street and he questioned how many stores San Rafael could afford to lose,
even before Target opened.
Stephanie Schriever, small business owner in Mill Valley, stated she and her husband were looking to
expand their business to Fourth Street, San Rafael. Supporting Target she believed it important to bring
vitality, jobs and energy to the area, instilling confidence, allowing for growth and providing sales revenue.
Moira Brennan urged the City Council to carefully consider the long-term implications of inviting big -box
entities like Target into San Rafael. She requested the City Council to work with ABAG and other regional
entities to develop and adopt region -wide blueprints for balanced and far-sighted growth. She urged the
City Council by its actions and decisions, to demonstrate they were socially, morally and environmentally
responsible stewards of the community.
Gail Napell San Rafael, addressing the long-term purpose and life of the site, stated this site would be
surrounded by water in approximately fifteen years. Unless levees were built the site would not be
accessible; therefore, the EIR should return and take a serious look at this issue. She commented that she
had forwarded the BCDC (Bay Conservation and Development Commission) maps to the City Council last
night.
Barry Taranto reported having spoken at the Planning Commission meeting regarding Target supposedly
donating to an anti -gay organization and he wished to accept Mr. Dewes' apology and explanation as to
their mistake. He thanked the City Clerk for the material provided this evening. Mr. Taranto stated he was
impressed with the positions taken by Carolyn Lenert and Steve Patterson because he believed it important
to look at community leadership.
Mr. Taranto expressed disappointment with the Public Works Director regarding traffic and pedestrian
crossings and he suggested building an overpass from San Question over 1-580 to Francisco Boulevard.
Had Target been located at Marin Square he would be in support of it.
Dr. Mark Saberman, Baypoint Lagoon resident, stated that traffic safety was a consequence of increased
traffic congestion. He noted impatient drivers attempting to get beyond traffic delays changed lanes
abruptly, potentially causing traffic delays, fender benders causing additional congestion and delays and
potential injury to car occupants and pedestrians. Cars travelling east towards the Marin Health & Wellness
Center and Mi Pueblo merge from two lanes of traffic to one lane, where the lanes were poorly defined and
where cars could now park on Bellam along the area of Mi Pueblo. He indicated this was an area where a
new pedestrian crossing was used by many mothers with infants in strollers and toddlers alongside
crossing to and from Mi Pueblo and the Health Clinic. Due to parked cars and ill-defined lanes for traffic,
cars travelling east towards Mi Pueblo had poor visibility of pedestrians and this safety hazard would be
further exacerbated by increasing traffic in the community.
Bill Carnev, Chair, Sustainable San Rafael, noting a letter had been submitted to the City Council, stated
Sustainable Marin had also endorsed this position. Opposing the development he explained it was the
wrong location, access was constricted, it was isolated from the synergy of other businesses and the
location resulted in impacts both to traffic and air quality. He stated that the benefits package was
inadequate to counter -balance the considerable impacts, especially those relating to offsetting carbon and
other greenhouse gas emissions. He explained that in the letter they offered additional ideas concerning
how those particular carbon impacts could be offset by moving towards a zero emission policy.
Mr. Carney stated that the Climate Change Action Plan took the community in a very different direction
than the establishment of more car -oriented dependant retail. Referring to the Interpretative Signage
Masterplan for Shoreline Park, Mr. Carney noted Sign 6, adjacent to this site, which poses the question
"What's a Hill Doing Here?" He explained this site was a monument to waste and whatever was located
there should be committed to zero waste. Continuing the sign states that: "within the foreseeable future
this site is likely to be an island because of the sea level rise in the Bay caused by climate change."
Concluding, Mr. Carney stated that anything going on this site would need to be absolutely committed to
achieving zero contribution to the sea level rise, zero emission of carbon and other greenhouse gases, or it
should not be built at all.
Craiq Slater, Marin Peace and Justice Coalition, noted that while Jackson's Hardware was still in business,
Yardbirds and Pacific Lumber had closed since Home Depot opened in San Rafael. He stated he was
opposed to Target because it was an unsustainable business model, economically, environmentally,
culturally, socially and politically.
CC 12-06-2010
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/06/2010 Page 605
Mr. Slater stated he was amazed to find out that Target's business model was based on consumer -driven
debt. Nationally -recognized leader in consumer advocacy, Harvard Law Professor, Assistant to President
Obama and Special Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury on Consumer Financial Production, Elizabeth
Warren, wrote an article in 2006 from which he read: "I love to shop at Target. I buy brightly colored baby
things for my granddaughter ... I had the business model upside down. I figured Target made their profits
on high -style, low-cost goods. Business Week just reported that Target's latest statement shows that
three-quarters of their profits didn't come from the sale of goods; they came from some sub -prime lending.
That's three out of four dollars of profit come from interest, late fees, over -limit charges, penalty fees. I
guess the baby clothes are just the teaser. What they really want is 29% interest on the Target card and
that difference has big-time political implications. Business analysts are worried about Target because the
evidence is growing that they have pumped up credit card returns by steadily lowering lending standards
and pushing credit cards into high default territory. As the American family begins to stumble under
crushing debt burden, hard times are predicted for Target. They sell low-cost goods, but they are surviving
on high-cost credit products."
Mr. Slater stated his research indicated that Target's yearly profit is approximately $2.5 billion and their
yearly income from credit card business was approximately $2 billion. Because of very little overhead in
the credit card business, three out of four dollars was profit. He noted that 47% of Target's credit card
business was apparently owned by J.P. Morgan Chase and questioning whether this was the type of
economic model for San Rafael, he stated it appeared to him to be a corporate -driven consumer society
based on debt.
Moran stated he supported Target, especially when the economy was bad
Tanva Wells stated that she does shop at Target and was happy to make the ten-minute drive to Novato,
noting she observed a lot of self-service and not a lot of employees in the store. Residing in Baypoint
Lagoon she reported that she sits in traffic which consumes her time and subjects her to toxic fumes and
she believed that a reduction in the value of her home would affect her property taxes negatively.
Regarding the 600 letters submitted to the City Council, while she understood the concept, Ms. Wells
questioned whether those carrying signs could work at Target because of legal implications.
Empathizing with the Cal -Pox family, Ms. Wells stated this was a great opportunity to get creative about
things that represented values in San Rafael. Indicating she preferred shopping locally and that Target did
not represent local values, she believed alternative solutions were available.
Phillip Tucker, Project Director, California Healthy Community Network, Tides Center, distributed
documents previously provided to the Planning Commission, which he indicated, probably started a stir
relative to free-standing the entire debate concerning food, Target and the model store that was being
misrepresented as a free-standing discount store, was really a new hybrid store — P -Fresh (Prototype
Fresh) It was introduced in 2008 with two stores, was expanded in 2009 with a further 100 stores and
arrived in California in November filing for remodels in about thirty stores in Northern California.
Commenting that not a lot of information was available on this, Mr. Tucker stated that it had approximately
60% of the PLU's sold in a super Target and carried 90% of the classifications of food items. He indicated
that, once a store such as this was approved, unless a cap was placed on non-taxable items the store
could convert to a super center based on a remodel. Mr. Tucker suggested including a condition of
approval to include $675,000 before applying sales tax, otherwise these two Target stores would be
competing for sales tax. Before accepting these figures Mr. Tucker suggested that together with the traffic,
they receive further consideration.
David Maver, San Rafael resident, stating one of his main issues was public safety, reported that last year
when Measure G was on the ballot one of the big issues put forth by the City Council was earthquake
safety in the area; however, he believed traffic would prevent safety vehicles from getting to the area.
Concerning jobs, Mr. Mayer stated these were low-paying jobs and, working in the employment field, he
reported that the unemployment rate in Marin County was typically the lowest in the state. Many retail jobs
begged for applicants; however, people did not stay, because when the economy improved, people would
move on. This would impact Target because they would have to pay more, could not raise prices and
possibly would go out of business.
CC 12-06-2010
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/06/2010 Page 606
On the issue of Green, Mr. Mayer noted that most of the City Councilmembers had run campaigns based
on green jobs, green energy and less greenhouse gasses and questioning where green jobs would be
found in Marin when Light/Industrial space was given up, he suggested this issue be given further
consideration.
Noting a lot of comment this evening on facts and opinion, Mr. Mayer reported that on November 19, 2010
the San Francisco Chronicle announced that Target would be locating to San Francisco with an 85,000
square -foot store, which would leave San Rafael the sandwich Target; therefore, for that and other reasons
he urged the City Council to oppose the project.
Jean Starkweather, speaking as a long-time observer, volunteer and protector of the shoreline, stated this
was a different issue about which she felt strongly. She reported that she had followed the Target project
through its various public meetings over the years and believed the project was improving as it passed
through design review and planning; however, at the Planning Commission meeting in November, 2010,
she noted the building and parking had been squeezed into the north east corner of parcel 6 — 28 -feet
northward and 3.7 -feet eastward, which the staff report referred to as a minor modification. Ms.
Starkweather explained it placed the building to the north on new fill, impacting the upland habitat of the
Canalways marsh. She identified the building on a map.
Ms. Starkweather explained that the hydrology map in the back of the Addendum to the EIR showed some
of the elevation lines of the area. The Addendum included three maps one of which was a hydrology map
from which she identified the elevation lines and a steep bank.
Ms. Starkweather stated that to the east the new project narrows the buffer zone, the area between the
parking lot fence and Shoreline Park. She explained that was a wildlife corridor, making it possible for birds
and animals to rest or make their way from the marsh to the north or to the ponds to the south. Ms.
Starkweather stated that every foot of width mattered when there were dogs, children and cars slamming
on one side or the other and it was unfortunate that the new position of the Target project lessened its
wildlife corridor's width along the entire by 3.7 feet. Should Target be approved for this parcel, she
believed changes should be made and suggested that the property not be subdivided and the Target
project be allowed to spread out as it was in its initial proposal of three years ago, taking the space it
needed.
Gavle Mills, stated that as a former Planning Commissioner she had seen the project over the years. She
stated she strongly opposed amending San Rafael's General Plan 2020 in order to allow Target to locate at
125 Shoreline Parkway as she believed this Target, larger than that in Novato, would be too intense for the
location and in that position she stood with Commissioners Sonnet and Kirchmann, the two dissenting
votes at the last Planning Commission meeting.
Ms. Mills stated that at the November 9, 2010 Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Mansourian was very
clear that a Target would impact traffic at Kerner and Bellam Boulevards for five -ten years. The final EIR
saw no mitigation possible; Shoreline Parkway's feeder street, East Francisco, consisted of a single lane in
and a single lane out. Ms. Mills stated the problem she saw was that shoppers would travel down 1-580 and
she did not see a lot of work in the traffic impact on 1-580.
Ms. Mills recalled a Target representative state this evening that there probably would be 1,000 additional
people daily coming to this Target — from the south, west, San Rafael and Terra Linda, down Sir Francis
Drake Boulevard to the Stop sign at San Quentin and she would like to see traffic studied at that
intersection. A further study should be conducted on the hairpin turn exiting Target, going over the freeway
south.
Mayor Boro thanked the audience for their endurance and comments. The City Council would not reach a
decision this evening as more work needed to be done on documents received today.
Mayor Boro paused the City Council meeting.
Resuming at 11:05 p.m., Mayor Boro thanked the City Council, Target presenters, staff, Mr. Moran and his
group. Mayor Boro closed the public hearing and testimony, indicating that any correspondence received
as of tonight would be acknowledged; however, anything after that would not become part of the record.
Mayor Boro suggested reconvening on December 20, 2010, at which time staff and Target representatives
could respond to the questions raised. Subsequently, the City Council would deliberate and if they so
chose, arrive at a decision.
CC 12-06-2010
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/06/2010 Page 607
Mayor Boro stated that City staff would work with Target representatives to ensure that all questions were
answered.
City Attorney Robert Epstein confirmed that public testimony was closed, together with receipt of written
communications; however, the responses staff would make to public testimony at the next meeting, as well
as any comments the project sponsor wished to make in response to the public, together with questions
from the City Council would also be included in the administrative record of this proceeding.
Mayor Boro added that any report from staff for the next meeting would be part of the record and made
available to the public.
Councilmember Brockbank stated that, while understanding public testimony was closed and no more
written submissions would be considered part of the public record, as the City council had been receiving
large volumes of emails daily, he did not see any reason why this would stop because of being cut off
arbitrarily, nor would telephones stop ringing or people stop requesting meetings. Legally, he inquired
whether the City Council was precluded from considering anything else received after today.
Mr. Epstein explained the question related to how staff cared for the administrative record at the City, about
which the City Clerk was quite punctilious. Noting an incredible amount of communications had been
received in this matter, he stated that in an effort to reasonably confine the administrative record to
materials received up through and including the noticed hearing today, as directed by Mayor Boro, he
believed staff had made a reasonable judgment that the official record would contain communications
received thus far. He stated the problem was that if such an approach were not taken a situation could
arise of not getting to the conclusion for the City Council to begin its work in the matter.
Mayor Boro announced that the SMART briefing scheduled for December 20, 2010 would be moved to
January 3, 2011.
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT:
4. None.
COUNCILMEMBER REPORTS / REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: (including AB 1234 Reports on
Meetings and Conferences Attended at City Expense)
None.
There being no further business, Mayor Boro adjourned the City Council meeting at 11:08 p.m.
ESTHER C. BEIRNE, City Clerk
APPROVED THIS DAY OF , 2010
ALBERT J. BORO, Mayor
CC 12-06-2010
SRCC Minutes (Regular) 12/06/2010 Page 608
CC 12-06-2010