Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 5.A 04/15/2013 • • Agenda Ite a/#'5.74 LU4 44/7"."ey'� X85$ DATE: April 15, 2013 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council through City Manager FROM: Heather Hines, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Public Hearing and Discussion on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed.Davidon/Scott Ranch,Residential Subdivision, located at Windsor Drive and D Street; APNs 019-120-040 and 019-120-041;File Number 03-TSM-0396 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council consider all public comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Davidon/Scott Ranch Residential Subdivision project and determine if the document adequately discloses the project's potential impacts, identify any changes or additions needed, and authorize staff to prepare a Final EIR which responds to all significant environmental points raised during the public review period. BACKGROUND The DEIR was released for public review on February 14, 2013, for a period of 45 days in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15200 et seq. This public review period was coordinated with all applicable trustee and responsible agencies through the State Clearinghouse and included a public hearing by the Planning Commission on March 12, 2013. A Notice of Availability of the DEIR and Public Hearing was posted with the County Clerk, published in the Argus Courier and notices were sent to residents and property owners within 500 feet of the subject property, as well as to interested parties who requested notification and all individuals who commented on the Notice of Preparation. In response to a public request for additional review time, the 45-day comment period was extended to 60 days, with the applicant's consent. A courtesy notice notifying the public of this extension was published in the Argus Courier and sent the same list as the original notice. All comments received during the public review period which raise significant environmental points will be responded to in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). Planning Commission Hearing—March 12. 2013 The Planning Commission held a public hearing to provide comments and receive public testimony on the DE1R at its meeting on March 12. 2013. In addition to individual Agenda Review: ,/ City Attorney„/ Finance Director City Manager-- Commissioner comments, the Commission provided the following consensus comments for consideration of the City Council: • The DEIR is confusing, difficult to understand the impact of proposed mitigations on the number and configuration of lots in the proposed project and alternatives; • Need clarification regarding how proposed mitigations impact other impacts and mitigations; • Preserve red barn in place (4-3 straw vote); • Need more in depth discussion and analysis of consistency of project and alternatives with hillside ordinance; • Need to strengthen geotechnical analysis to better address slide area and potential impacts/needed mitigations; • Consider adding intersections at San Antonio and I Street and San Antonio and D Street Extension to traffic study; • Evaluate potential traffic impacts from detouring off of Highway 101 during CalTrans construction; • Victoria and Celsius 44 should be included in cumulative scenario if not already; • Consider more mitigations for minimizing construction noise, including more restrictive construction hours; and • Expanded discussion of stormwater detention and impact to Kelly Creek, including where and how. In addition, comments from 29 members of the general public were received. Issues identified during public comment included drainage, traffic, landslides, removal of the red barns, impacts on ridgeline, compatibility with existing development, greenhouse gas impacts, construction noise, impacts on wildlife, tree removal, aesthetic impacts, privacy impacts, and lack of clarity of the DEIR. A complete record of all oral comments will be included in the FEIR. After receiving public comments and conducting its own discussion of the DEIR, the Commission requested that the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) be returned for Planning Commission review when it is completed, as permitted by the City's Environmental Review Guidelines. The Commission deferred their recommendation on the adequacy of the environmental documentation until their review of the FE1R. Because the Commission is not required to make a formal recommendation on the DEIR by either CEQA or the City's local guidelines, this decision by the Commission does not affect the Council's authority as the decision-maker to decide whether the DEIR provides enough information to proceed to preparation of an FEIR. (City of Petaluma Environmental Review Guidelines, sec. 12.7.1, 12.8.0.) DISCUSSION Project Description The applicant has submitted an application for a Vesting Tentative Map and Zoning Map Amendment, and for development of a 93-parcel single-family residential subdivision and associated parking and circulation on the existing 60-acre site. Each residence would have at least 2 covered parking spaces and two uncovered (driveway) parking spaces. An additional 7 off-street parking spaces are proposed at Windsor Drive. This parking is proposed to meet the • anticipated demand for those using the proposed pedestrian path connecting to Helen Putnam Regional Park. This path would have a connection at Windsor Drive, across Kelly Creek and continue up toward the Park. A pedestrian connection is also proposed at D Street, to continue along Kelly Creek and connect to the Park. Vehicular access to the homes would be as follows: • Southerly lots south of Kelly Creek— D Street • Southerly lots north of Kelly Creek— Windsor Drive • Northerly lots — Windsor Drive Approximately 23 acres of open space are proposed with this development. This includes a 200- foot wide strip of open space centered along the length of Kelly Creek from D Street to the westerly property line at Helen Putnam Park and a 300-foot wide setback area along the westerly property line (south of Kelly Creek) adjacent to Helen Putnam Park. The existing stock pond is to be maintained and incorporated into the development. Drainage/overflow from this pond is proposed via a modified tributary that leads to Kelly Creek. Format of the Draft EIR The DEIR contains three primary sections, Environmental Impact Analysis, General Impact Categories, and Alternatives to the Proposed Project. The DEIR analysis includes an overview of the existing conditions compared with incorporation of the project and applies thresholds of significance based on CEQA guidelines and other regulatory criteria to assess whether or not the project will have an impact and, if so, the significance of that impact. The DEIR discusses levels of significance and possible and feasible mitigation measures to ensure that the impact is reduced to a less-than-significant level. For those impacts that cannot be reduced to a less-than-significant level a determination of significant and unavoidable is made. Cumulative impacts are evaluated in each impact section. General Plan Consistency The.application for the proposed project was deemed complete on March 5, 2004, when the 1987 General Plan was in effect and prior to adoption of the General Plan 2025 in May 2008. Because the project includes a vesting tentative subdivision map, it is subject to the Subdivision Map Act ("Map Act"). Government Code section 66474.2, part of the Act, provides that, "....in determining whether to approve or disapprove an application for a tentative map, the local agency shall apply only those ordinances, policies and standards in effect on the date the local agency has determined that the application is complete pursuant to Section 65943 of the Government Code." Because the applicant contends that this provision of the Map Act requires evaluation of the project under the 1987 General Plan, the DEIR analyzes general plan consistency both based on the 1987 General Plan, and on General Plan 2025 policies in each relevant impact section. DEIR Table 4.8-I and Table 4.8-2 provide a consolidated list of general plan policies from both the 1987 General Plan and General Plan 2025, along with a general plan consistency discussion for each plan. The applicant has agreed to pay current development impact fees and to abide by the Water Conservation Regulations adopted as Chapter 15.17 of the Petaluma Municipal Code in 2009. The proposed project includes a request for a zoning map amendment to rezone the property as a unique residential planned unit development (PUD). The former City of Petaluma Zoning Ordinance (ZO) was superseded by the Implementing Zoning Ordinance (IZO) in May 2008. Because the prior zoning ordinance cannot now be amended, the project is evaluated only under the current IZO. Impacts and Mitigation Measures The DEIR and the Initial Study (DEIR Technical Appendix A) identified several areas where the proposed project would have an environmental impact. The impacts are defined as a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project. Most of the impacts identified as potentially significant can be reduced to a less-than-significant level with the incorporation of various mitigation measures(DEIR Table 2-1). These mitigation measures have been identified in the DEIR, will be incorporated into the environmental determination and any project approval, and will be carried out through a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and project conditions of approval. The potential impacts that require the most substantial mitigation and changes in the project are found in the Aesthetics Section 4.2 and Biological Resources Section 4.4. Proposed mitigation to lessen the potential impacts in both of these categories requires elimination of lots proposed in the project application. As outlined in the DEIR, these measures include the following: • Mitigation Measure AES-la and AES-2 which eliminates Lots 21-25, 91, 92, and 93 to mitigate impacts on scenic vistas and impacts on visual character of the site; • Mitigation Measure BIO-1 b which eliminates Lots 74-83 and 57-68 to mitigate for impacts on the California Red-Legged Frog. (These lot numbers and number of units are different than what is stated under B10-lb in the EIR. See corrections section below for explanation); and • Mitigation Measure AES-3 which requires a 300-foot urban separator along the southerly property boundary would require shifting lots 84-90 to the north and eliminating Lots 69- 73. Impacts that are Significant and Unavoidable The DEIR also identified potentially significant impacts on the environment that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. These impacts would cause significant and unavoidable impacts for the proposed project under Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Noise: (See DEIR Table 2-1 Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures starting on page 2- 5 of the document for a complete list of all impacts and proposed mitigation measures.) 4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact GHG-2 Operational Emissions As proposed and before the reduction in units required by proposed aesthetic and biological mitigation measures, the project would result in direct and indirect emissions associated with the operational life of the project. These operational emissions would be generated by area, mobile, and stationary sources. Unmitigated operational GHG emissions are estimated to be 1,803 metric tons of CO2 per year at project buildout. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD) threshold of significance for operational GlIG emissions is 1,100 metric tons (MT) of CO2e per year (reducing the project to 61 units or less would meet the threshold). The project's operational GHG emissions exceed the threshold value by about 703 MT of CO2e per year. To reduce the level of impact the DEIR identified emission reduction associated with the project's energy and water-saving features as included in Mitigation Measure 01 40-2. These measures result in only a.small reduction in GHGs (-136 MT CO2e/year) because vehicle trips by project occupants constitute the largest share of 01-10 emissions. An additional 567 MT of CO2e per year would be required to reduce GHG emissions below the threshold of significance. The DEIR concludes reducing emissions by this amount through energy efficiency or Similar project-specific mitigation cannot be accomplished. Therefore, impacts related to operational GHG emissions associated with implementation of the proposed project before mitigation would be significant and unavoidable. However, Mitigation Measures (MM) AES-la, AES-2, AES-3, and BIO-1 b would reduce the number of residential units to 58 and consequently reduce GHG emissions below the thresholds at which this impact would be significant. Therefore, impacts related to operational 0I-I0 emissions associated with implementation of the proposed project, as mitigated by MM AES-la, AES-2, B10-I b, would be less than significant. GHG impacts are listed as significant and unavoidable in impact summary "fable 2-1 of the DEIR because the aesthetic and biological mitigation measures which reduce emissions by reducing the number of lots have not yet been approved. Noise Impact NOISE-1 Construction Noise The DEIR evaluated noise impacts related to temporary construction noise and recommended Mitigation Measures NOISE-1 a through 1 i to reduce the level of impacts associated with construction noise. Despite these mitigation measures, the DEIR recognizes that construction.noise levels are likely to periodically exceed the thresholds used for the Noise Analysis. Therefore, temporary or periodic construction noise impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Analysis of Alternatives Section 6 of the DEIR discusses project alternatives. As required by CEQA, the alternatives were developed to avoid or substantially lessen significant impacts of the project, but still feasibly attain most of the project objectives. In this case, the alternatives achieve proportionate 5 reduction of impacts through reduction in the number and placement of units. As discussed in greater detail below, Alternatives B, C and D evaluate 66, 47 and 28 units, respectively. Based on the number and placement of units in Alternatives B and C, Mitigation Measures AES-1 a, AES-2, and B10-16 are still applicable and further reduce the number.of units for these two alternatives to a mitigated Alternative B of 61 units and amitigated Alternative C of 41 units. Alternative D (28 units) avoids the significant impacts and does not require mitigation or further reduction in its number of units. A group of tables have been prepared and attached to this report (Attachment C) to demonstrate how the mitigation measures would apply to each of the alternatives. The four project alternatives evaluated in the DEIR are as follows: Alternative A: No Project/No Built) Under the "No Project" alternative, which is required by CEQA, the proposed project would not be constructed and the site would remain in its existing undeveloped condition. Alternative B: Alternate Site Plan.(66 Single-Family Lots before Mitigation) Alternative B considers the development of the project site with 66 single-family homes and associated on-site roadways and landscaping (refer to DEIR Figure 6-1, Alternative B (66 Single-Family Lots) Site Plan). With implementation of MM AES-la, AES-2, and BIO-1 b which require elimination of Lots 21-23 and 59-60 from the 66-unit Alternative B Site Plan,the mitigated Alternative B would have 61 total units. However, the site plan for this alternative (DEIR Figure 6-I) demonstrates a possible red barn relocation scenario. In this scenario the red barn would be relocated to an area south of Kelly Creek. If the Council determines that such relocation provides aesthetic and cultural value similar to that created by rehabilitating the building in place (see MM AES-1 a, and AES-2), the elimination of lots 21-23 from the 66-unit alternative would not be necessary. In Alternative B, the lots would be dispersed as follows: The portion of the site north of Kelly•Creek would be developed with 47 lots (after mitigation), in a layout similar to the proposed project. The portion of the site south of Kelly Creek would be developed with 14 lots (after mitigation), all of which would be located on the eastern portion of the site. Alternative B includes the following features that would avoid significant but mitigable impacts to geological hazards, biological resources and aesthetics: • Reconfigured development designed to avoid the existing California Red-legged Frog breeding pond and provide a large buffer between the pond and the proposed home sites. Home sites that were planned for the site to the west of the pond and south of Kelly Creek under the proposed project have been eliminated; • An increase in the total amount of open space from 23.43 acres to 37.52 acres; • Retention of 356 trees previously proposed for removal; • Retention of views of scenic resources as viewed from D Street by incorporating a minimum 100-foot setback from D Street for the proposed homes and elimination of the sound wall along D Street; • Preservation and restoration of the large red barn (but not the associated outbuildings) on the project site, relocated to a location south of Kelly Creek; the Council may consider whether this provision fulfills proposed Mitigation Measure AES-lb: • Addition of a trailhead with a parking lot, restroom, benches, and picnic tables south of Kelly Creek: • Avoidance of manyof the landslide areas on the project site; • A consistent 300-foot urban separator; • Addition of a three-acre neighborhood pack along D Street on both sides of Kelly Creek; • Inclusion of a traffic-calming circle on Windsor Drive at the intersection of"A" and"B" streets within the project site;and • Mitigation measures further reducing this alternative to 61 units will also further reduce the level of impact on operational level greenhouse gas emissions. As-a result this alternative reduces the level of impact on operation greenhouse gas emissions to less than signi licant. However, if the Council determines that relocation of the red barn as described in DEIR Figure 6-1, provides aesthetic and cultural value similar to that created by rehabilitating the building in place (see MM AES-la, and AES-2), the elimination of lots 21-23 from the 66-unit alternative would not be necessary and this alternative would instead be reduced to 64 units (MM BID-lb eliminates lots 59-60). The 64 units would exceed the BAAQMD threshold of significance for operational GI-IG emissions, therefore resulting in significant and unavoidable impacts on operational greenhouse gas emissions. In addition the significant and unavoidable impact from operational GI-IG emissions stated in the last bullet point above, the other remaining significant and unavoidable impact from Alternative B, after mitigation, would be from temporary construction noise. Alternative C: Alternate Site Plan (47 Single-Family Lois before Mitigation) Alternative C considers the development of the project site with 47 single-family homes and associated on-site roadways and landscaping. Mitigation Measures AES-la, AES-2, and BIO- 1 b would require removal of.Lots 21-23 from the Alternative C Site Plan', resulting in in 44 total units. The lots would be dispersed as follows: The area north of Windsor Drive would be developed with 15 lots in a layout similar to the proposed project. This alternative eliminates Lot 8 north of:Windsor Drive from the original 93 lot proposal. which allows expansion of the private open space area (Parcel A) at the northwestern corner of the intersection of D Street and Windsor Drive. The area north of Kelly Creek, but south of Windsor Drive would be developed with 31 lots (after implementation of MM AES-la, AES-2 which eliminates lots 21-23) (refer to Figure 6-2, Alternative C Site Plan). No development is proposed for areas south of Kelly Creek as a part of Alternative C with the exception of a meandering public pedestrian/bike path providing for future connection to the Helen Putnam Regional Park trail system at the western edge of the project site. In addition to avoiding all of the landslides on the southern parcel of the site, Alternative C also includes the following features that would avoid significant but.mitigable impacts to biological resources and aesthetics: • No development south of Kelly Creek which mitigates all of the significant, but mitigable impacts related to biological resources in this area of the site; • The proposed limits of grading would provide improved setbacks from the top-of-bank along Kelly Creek and main tributary drainage. The refined limits of grading would provide a minimum 10-foot setback from the top-of-bank; • Retention of views of scenic resources as viewed from D Street by eliminating lots and the proposed sound walls along D Street; • Retention of some of the important character-defining features of the project site (e.g. oak woodland, southern hillside); and • Significant unavoidable impacts associated with operational level greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced to less than significant due to size of the project. The only remaining significant and unavoidable impact from Alternative C, after mitigation, would he from temporary construction noise. However; because of the reduced number of units, the length of time needed for construction of the units would be reduced and impacts from construction noise would be less than the proposed project. Alternative D: Alternate Site Plan (28 Single-Family Lots) Alternative D considers the development of the project site with a total of 28 single-family homes in limited areas north of Windsor Drive and north of Kelly Creek. No development would occur south of Kelly Creek. The proposed site plan for Alternative D does not place lots in the areas covered by MM AES-la, AT S-2 or BIO-1 b, and therefore achieves the result desired from these mitigation measures through site design. The lots would be dispersed as follows: The area north of Windsor Drive would be developed with 12 lots. Lots 8 through I I of the original 93 unit project would be eliminated to allow for more private open space in this area of the site. The area north of Kelly Creek, but south of Windsor Drive would be developed with 16 lots, specifically at the northwestern corner of the site. Lots 17 through 29 and 30 through 41 from the original 93 unit proposal would be eliminated under this alternative to provide more open space and area for a park, and greater setbacks along Kelly Creek (refer to Figure 6-3, Alternative D (28 Single-Family Lots) Site Plan). Proposed development under Alternative D would occur adjacent to existing single-family neighborhoods along Windsor Drive, B Street, and Oxford Court. Since no construction would occur in the area where the barns are located this alternative also includes the preservation of the large red barn and associated outbuildings on the project site with no option of relocating the red barns. Also included is the meandering public pedestrian/hike path south of Kelly Creek for future connection to the Helen Putnam Regional Park trail system at the western edge of the project site. This alternative accomplishes the following: • No development south of Kelly Creek which eliminates the need for mitigation of the significant. impacts related to biological resources in this area of the site; • The proposed limits of grading would provide improved setbacks from the top-of-bank along Kelly Creek. The refined limits of grading would provide a minimum 10-foot setback from the top-of-bank; • Retention of views of scenic resources as viewed from D Street by eliminating lots and the proposed sound walls along D Street; • Retention of some of the important character-defining features-of the project site (e.g. oak woodland, southern hillside); and • Significant unavoidable impacts associated with operational level greenhouse gas emissions would be reduced to.less than significant due to size of the project. The only remaining significant and unavoidable impact from Alternative C, after mitigation, would be from temporary construction noise. However, because of the reduced number of units, the length of time needed for construction of the units would be reduced and impacts from construction noise would be less than the proposed project. Environmentally Superior Alternative Based on the evaluation in the DEIR, the "No Project";alternative would be regarded as the environmentally superior alternative because only the"No Project" alternative results in eliminating all significant effects of the proposed project, as outlined in Table 6-2 on Page 6-51 of the DEIR. However, CEQA requires that if the"No Project" alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, then the FIR must also designate the next most environmentally preferable alternative. Alternative D (28 Single-Family Homes) is identified as the CEQA environmentally superior alternative because-it proposes the fewest homes and proposes no development south of Kelly Creek, resulting in the lowest impact on views and biological and cultural resources and the largest reduction in GI-IG emissions, compared to the proposed project and the other alternatives. All of the proposed project's significant but mitigable impacts associated with development to the south of Kelly Creek would be avoided. Under,Alternative D. significant GHG impacts would be reduced to less than significant, and the only remaining significant impact would be temporary construction noise. Corrections The following minor corrections in the printed-DEIR will be made as part of the Final EIR. Section 2 Table 2-1 See Attachment B for corrections to properly carry forward the mitigation measures contained in the DE1R. Section 4 Page 4.4-28, Mitigation Measure BIO lb Special Status Species, second bullet item: This bullet pointstates that lots to the west and northwest of the stock pond should be eliminated to allow a direct link between the pond and Kelley Creek and Helen Putnam Park. The last sentence states: "At minimum this includes elimination of Lots 57 through 74,.together with the associated grading, roadway construction and other proposed habitat modifications." This sentence should be changed to identify the lots located west and northwest and should state: "At minimum this includes elimination of Lots 57 through 68, and Lot 74 together with the associated grading, roadway construction and other proposed habitat modifications." Section 6 Page 6-26, first bullet point under the first paragraph No development of homes or a trail permitted south of Kelly Creek which mitigates all of the significant, but mitigable impacts related to biological resources in this area of the site; Should delete "..or a trail.." so that the sentence reads as follows: No development of homes permitted south of Kelly Creek which mitigates all of the significant, but mitigable impacts related to biological resources in this area of the site; FINANCIAL IMPACTS Davidon is a cost recovery project with all costs of processing the application paid by the applicant. The applicant has paid 147,072.67 in cost recovery fees to date. The cost recovery account maintains a positive•balance. The.cost of preparation for the Environmental Impact Report is paid through a Professional Service Agreement between the City of Petaluma and WRA and is paid for by the applicant. The associated budget for the EIR is $145,088.50. The project is subject to all City development impact fees and related mitigation fees. The appropriate timing and payment of such fees will be determined.by City staff and incorporated into the conditions of approval for the project. The applicant has agreed in writing to pay current development impact fees, rather than those in effect at,the time its application was complete. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft DEIR and Appendices (previously delivered to CC on February 13, 2013) 2. Planning,Commission meeting minutes, March 12, 2013 3. Planning Commission Staff Report Packet, March 12, 2013 4. Planning Commission late mail packet, March 12, 2013 5. Additional public comments received after March 12, 2013 Items listed below are large in volume and are not attached to this report, but may be viewed in the City Clerk's office. Davidon/Scott Ranch Single-family Subdivision Draft EIR Davidon/Scott Ranch Single-family Subdivision Draft EIR Appendices V