Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 1AAttachmentC 02/08/2010- ,, ATTAC~IlV1ENT C :- :~ RESOLUTION `OF TIC C'ITI' ®F PETAI.U~MA CITY COIJNCII. NIA~NG FINDINGS OF FACT `'' ..,. , ANI) ADOPTING A 1VIITIGATION 1VI®NITQRING; ANI) REP®RTING '. PR®GRA~IVI ANI) STATEMENT OF' OVE~DING CONSIDERATIONS FOR TIDE EAST WASI~INGTON' PLACE PROJECT; PURSZJANT T® TIE CALIFORNIA E~NVIRONIVIEN'I'AL QYJALIT~ ACT WIIEREAS, the .Notice of Preparation ,of the Draft Environmental Impact Report .for the East Washington Place =project. ("the Project") was marled to all responsible and affected agencies on October 14, 2008, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.4 and California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines Section 15082; and, W>EIFREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") was prepared :for the Project in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. and CEQA Guidelines Section 15000. et seq., and circulated for public review between July 16, 2009 and September 14, 2009; with a notice inviting comments on the Draft EIR given in compliance with CEQA. Guidelines Section 15085; and, WIIEREAS, the Draft ;EIR. relies on the EIR for the City of Petaluma General Plan 2025, certified by City Council Resolution 2008-058 on April 7, 2008, for information and analysis relating tq certain cumulative impacts and incorporates said analysis and conclusions to the extent applicable, as identified in the Draft EIR; and, WIIEREAS, the City has committed to implementing the mitigation measures contained in the ImplementationPlan and Mitigation Monitoring .Program adopted by the City as Exhibit B to Resolution .2008.-084, .Resolution of the City Council of the City of Petaluma . Making Findings of Fact, Adopting a Statement. of Overriding Considerations and Adopting an Implementation Plan and Mitigation Monitoring Program in Support of the General Plan 2025, Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; and, WIIEREAS, the, City distributed copies of the Draft EIR to the public agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the Project and to other interested persons and agencies and .sought the comments of such persons and agencies; and, W>EI;EAS, the Planning Commission held a noticed public meeting and hearing on August 25, 2009 .on the Draft EIR; and, WIIEREAS, the City Council held a noticed public meeting and hearing on September 14, 2009 on the Draft EIR; and, WIIEREAS, written and oral comments on the Draft EIR have been received and responses to those comments have been prepared in the form of a Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project ("Final EIR"); and, C `~ WHEREAS; the. Planning Commission. held noticed public meetings on November 24 and- December 8, 2.009, at which time it considered the Final EIR and accepted public comments; and, WHEREAS, at its December °8, .2009 meeting, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution recommending to the City Council certification of the Final EIR; and, WHEREAS; on _, 20:09, by Resolution No. 2009-, the City Council certified-the EIR for the Project'and made CEQA findings required as to that certification; and WHEREAS, Section. 21081'(a) of the Public Resources Code requires the City Council to make one or more findings with~respect to each significant adverse environmental effect of the Project prior to its approval; and WHEREAS; findings regarding each significant adverse environmental effect of the .. Project and mitigation measures-which reduce each such effect to a less°than significant level and findings regarding each alternative to the Project studied in the EIR'are set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto .and' incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS; Section. 2108`1(x)(3) of the Public Resources Code: requires the City Council to make one or more findings with respect to alternatives to the Project studied in the EIR if all significant effects of the Project are not-mitigated to insignificance; and WI3EREAS; findings regarding alternatives to the :Project studied in the EIR are set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS,. certain Project impacts will remain. significant and unavoidable, even after the application of all. feasible Project mitigation measures to lessen those impacts, including (a) AQ-1; Impact from exceeding the level of.development anticipated in the regional clean .air plan (2005 Ozone Strategy) which was based on the City's previous General Plan and its les"s-intense development assumptions; (b) AQ-3: New emissions affecting long-term xr quality, primarily from traffic emissions; and (c) TRA- 7: Unacceptable Levels of Service:(LOS) at the intersections of Lakeville Street/Caulfield IJane,.and Lakeville Street/D Street and,on segments of U.S. Highway 101. from Petaluma Boulevard to Lakeville .Highway, Lakeville Highway to Washington Street; and. Washington Street to Redwood Highway in both the .near term project plus other approved projects and in the cumulative project plus General Plan buildout scenarios. WHEREAS; Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) requires that the City Council find that specific economic, legal, social,. technological or other considerations outweigh any significant environmental effects ofthe Project which- can not be fully mitigated; and WHEREAS; a:Statement of Overriding Considerations consisting of the City's findings and determination rcgarding;the Project's significant and unavoidable effects is contained in Exhibit C, which is incorporated herein by reference; and 2 r ~/ WI1<EREAS, pursuantto CEQA; a Mitigation Moritoring;and Reporting Program has been prepared, as set forth in Section 6 of the Final EIR, which is incorporated herein by reference, to ensure that all mitigation measures relied on in the findings are fully implemented; and WHEREAS; some mitigation measures identified in Exhibit.A may require action by; or cooperation from, other agencies. Similarly, mitigation measures requiring the applicant to contribute toward improvements planned by other agencies will require the relevant agencies to receive the funds and spend them appropriately. NOW THEREFOR , BE IT RESOI.,VED: 1_ The above Recitals are true and correct and adopted as findings of the City Council. 2. As required by CEQA and. based on substantial evidence in the record, the City Council adopts the findings regarding significant effects. of the Project and mitigation contained in the attached Exhibit A. 3. As required by CEQA. and based on substantial evidence in the record, the City Council adopts the findings regarding alternatives to the Project contained in the attached Exhibit B. 4. As required by CEQA and.based on substantial evidence'in the record, the City Council adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding significant and unavoidable effects of the Project contained in the attached Exhibit C. 5. The City Council hereby approves and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program set forth in Section 6 of the Final EIR, to ensure that all mitigation measures relied on in the .findings are fully implemented. Compliance with the MMRP shall be a condition of any Project approval. 6. The City Council. hereby finds that for each identified mitigation measure that requires the cooperation or action of another agency, adoption and/or implementation of each such mitigation measure is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the. public agency identified, and the measures can and should be adopted and/or implemented by said agency. 7. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption and the City Clerk is directed to file a Notice of Determination pursuant to CEQA. 3 ~' EX)~II~I'T A FILINGS C®NCEI~NING SIGNIFICANT ~1VIPAC'I'S ANI) 1VIITIGA'I'ION 1VIEASLTI~S Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081. and CEQA Guidelines section 15091, the City Council hereby makes the following findings with respect to the potential for significant environmental impacts .and means for .mitigating those impacts. Many of the impacts and mitigation measures in the following findings are summarized rather then set forth in full. The text of the Draft and Final EIRs should be consulted for a complete description of the impacts and. mitigations. Impact AES-1: The lighting levels proposed for the project may exceed the City's allowable lighting levels at the property line. As a result, the project could :increase lighting levels at adjacent properties in excess of what would otherwise be allowed per. Section 21.040D of the City's Zoning Ordinance. Mitigation AES-1: The project shall comply with the lighting requirements of Section 21.040D of the Petaluma Zoning. Ordinance, specifically by not allowing direct glare from non-parking lot lighting at the property line. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Impact AQ-l: Although the project is accounted for in the City's new General Plan, the project exceeds the level of .development anticipated in the regional clean air plan (2005 Ozone Strategy), which was based on°the City's previous General Plan and its less-intense development .assumptions. Mitigation AQ-1: The project applicant shall reduce air pollutant emissions from both traffic trips and area sources through the measures listed in Table 2-1 of the FEIR Finding: The City's_ General Plan 2025 accounts for development of this scale of project. The current regional Clean Air Plan would eventually be updated to include the level of development occurring under thi's project. Approval of the project prior to adoption of the Clean Air Plan update would technically result in an inconsistency with regional clean air planning assumptions. 4 c-~ This would• be a significant and. unavoidable 'impact. It should be noted.. that the project modeling had already included a reduction of about 1:1 percent due to project.. features that would reduce vehicle trips and areasource emissions; and proximity of~existing transit. Implementation of the mitigation measures. listed in Table 2-1 of the EIR would reduce ozone precursor and PM10 emissions by at least another 4 pounds per day; however, :if would not reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. :Impact AQ-2: Construction activity would. generate air pollutant emissions that could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Mitigation AQ-2: A list of feasible control measures that the BAAQMD recommends to limit construction emissions of PM~o so 'than impacts are less than significant are listed in Table 2-1 of the EIR. These mitigation measures shall be implemented for all construction activity on the site. .Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen. the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Impact AQ-3: The project would generafe:new emissions that would affect long-term air quality. A majority of the emissions generated by full buildout of the project would :be produced by traffic. Mitigation.AQ-3: The project applicant shall implement the measures :i'dentified in Mitigation Measure AQ-1, listed in Table 2-1 of the EIR. Finding: Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce ozone precursor and PM10 emissions; however, the measures would not reduce emissions below the BAAQINID thresholds. As aresult, the air quality impacts would be significant and unavoidable. `Impact AQ-4 The project; in combination with other projects occurring .in the City of Petaluma, could contribute to increased levels of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that cumulatively contribute to global warming: An increase in GHG emissions could conflict with. the effort. to .achieve the reduction`targets established by the City of Petaluma-:and AB 32 to reduce such emissions. ~~~ Mitigation AQ-4: In addition to Mitigation Measure AQ-1, the Project Applicants and the City shall' implement the measures to reduce GHG emissions as listed in Table 2-l, §AQ-4, of the FEIR Finding: Changes or alterations have been required'iri, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the .significant environmental effect. as identified in the EIR. Impact BIO-1: Proposed development could result in the direct loss or temporary, coristruction- period disturbance to tree. nesting raptors if new nests are established in the future in advance of construction. Mitigation BIO-1: Adequate measures shall be taken to avoid-inadvertent take of raptor nests in active use. This shall be accomplished by taking the steps as listed in Table 2-1, §BIO-1, of the FEIR Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in; or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect'as identified in the EIR. Impact BIO-2: Proposed development would eliminate 0.09 acres of Corps regulated waters and the 0.23 acres of seasonal wetland. ,Mitigation BIO-2: Adequate measures shall be takento mitigate the, foss of jurisdictional waters. An application shall be submitted to the Corps and RWQCB and necessary authorizations obtained under the CWA and any other~applicable federal and State regulations prior to issuance of a grading permit. Any jurisdictional waters that are lost or disturbed;shall be mitigated on a "no-net-loss" basis in accordance with the Corps mitigation guidelines, either through on-site or off-site replacement:or through participation in purchase of mitigation credits from an approved mitigation bank at a minimum 11 ratio or as otherwise required by the Corps and RWQCB. .Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen~~the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Impact CUL-1: Subsurfacearchaeological, paleontological materials and/or human remains may be discovered during: grading,.. trenching or other activities associated with implementation of the proposed project. Inadvertent destruction or disturbance of such undiscovered resources constitutes a significant impact. 6 Mitigation CUL-1: If evidence of archeological; paleontological artifacts. and/or human remains are discovered.during construction activities; all operations at and adjacent to the discovered resource shall halt until a qualified archeologist determines the extent and significance of the find and recommends appropriate mitigation measures. . ..Finding: Changes or alterations .have been required in, .or incorporated. into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Impact GEO-1: Large earthquakes. could generate strong to violent, ground shaking at the site and could cause damage to buildings and infrastructure and threaten public safety. Mitigation GEO-1: All construction activities shall meet~the California Building Code regulations for seismic safety'(i.e. enforcing perimeter and/or load-bearing walls, bracing parapets, etc.). Finding: Changes or alteratons.have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified. in the EIR. Impact GEO-2: The proposed project facilities on the southern portion of the site could be damaged by liquefaction and "resulting localized differential settlement. Impact GEO-3: The undocumented fills could undergo settlement that could cause damage to foundations and pavements. Impact GEO-4c The presence of relatively shallow groundwater could impact grading and underground construction and equipment. Impact GEO-5: Corrosive: soils degrade metallic structures placed below grade; including but not limited to, foundation components. Impact GEO-6: Expansive soils could cause damage. to foundations and pavements. .Mitigations GEO-2 - GEO-6: The geotechnicalrecommendations for mitigation of liquefaction and resulting localized differential. settlement, undocumented fills, shallow groundwater, corrosive potential and expansive soils; that are contained in the.-Lowney Associates geotechnical reports dated,April 28 and May28, 2004, shall be implemented. Finding: Changes or :alterations .have been required in, or incorporated into; the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Impact HAZ-1: Demolition of the Carter Field Little League facilities may result in worker exposure to asbestos containing materials (AGMs) and the release of airborne asbestos. 7 c-~. Mitigation HAZ-1: Prior to demolition of the Carter Field,'the applicant shall coordinate with the .Bay Area Air Quality .1Vlanagement District (BAAQMD) to arrange: for an inspection of structures to be demolished. If asbestos is detected.in either structure, the demolition and removal of asbestos-containing'building materials wi-11 be .subject to applicable BAAQMD Regulations and the. applicant would be required to obtain a Job Number from the BAAQMD. The applicant would be required to present the Job Numberto the City Building Department :before demolition could commence. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in; or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially'lessen t_he significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Impact HAZ-2: During the proj°ect construction period, the proposed project may increase fire danger related to the City of Petaluma's annual Fourth of July firework show due to the fire risk posed by burning embers: falling' on exposed construction materials. Mitigation HAZ-2: The Retaluma Fire:Department and General Contractor shall meet several weeks before the Fourth of July fireworks event for logistical planning .and to determine what areas must be cleaned and protected from possible firework fallout: The Petaluma Fire Department shall also coordinate with the State Fire. Marshal.at.least two weeks before the event to ensure that any of the Marshal's: concerns are adequately addressed. Finding: Changes or alteratgns:have been required in, or.ncorporatedinto, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the~s~giiificantenvironmental effect as identified in the EIR. Impact HYDRO-1:,,Development of the project site could degrade water quality during construction and post-construction.:due to the intensification of urban land uses and increased imperviousness. Because a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which would normally include .construction-phase housekeeping measures and post-construction source- control and treatment best management practices (BMPs), for the project site has not yet been prepared, the project would lead to .significant irripacts on surface and' groundwater quality. Mitigation HYDRO-1: No grading permits or other construction permits for the project site shall be issued until the project applicant prepares a SWPPP and the SWPPP is reviewed and approved by the City of Petaluma. 8 i Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially .lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Impact HYDRO-2: The lack. of an erosion control plan would lead to a significant impact on surface and groundwater quality. Mitigation HYDRO-2: The project applicant shall prepare and 'submit an erosion control plan. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Petalurria prior to issuance of a grading permit for the proposed development. The erosion control plan shall include phasing of grading, limiting areas of disturbance, designation of restricted-entry zones, diversion of runoff away from disturbed areas, protective measures for sensitive areas, outlet. protection and provision for revegetation or mulching. The~plan shall also prescribe treatment,measures to trap sediment, such as inlet protection, straw bale barriers, straw mulching, straw wattles, silt fencing, check dams, terracing, and siltation or sediment ponds. Finding: Changes or alterations Have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the .significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Impact HYDRO-3: -There would be a net`increase in runoff from the site during 10- and 100-year storm events. Because the final design for the storm'drain system, including any potential off- site. downstream drainage improvements,. has not. been finalized or approved by the City of Petaluma Water Resources and .Conservation Department, the increase in off-site flows would be a significant impact.. _ Mitigation HYDRO-3: The applicant shall secure approval from the City of Petaluma Water Resources and Conservation Department for the proposed storm drainage plans before a building permit can be issued. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or .incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Impact NOI-1: Significant,~temporary noise impacts could occur if the project does not implement noise-reduction best management practices (BMPs) during the construction period. 9 ~~ Mitigation NOI-1: Project developers shall require by contract specifications that the construction BMPs be implemented by contractors to reduce construction noise levels as listed in Table 2-1, §NOI-1, of the FBIR. .Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Impact TRA-1: 95th percentile Base .Case Plus Project and 2025 Plus Project vehicle queues could be accommodated within available distances between intersections or within the lengths of turn pockets and off-'ramps, with the °following exceptions: Weekday AM, PM and Saturday Peak Mour -Base Case + Project Conditions ® East Washington Street/ Southbound 10'1 Ramps ® Westbound East Washington .Street approach. left turn lane Weekday AM and Saturday Peak Hours - 2025 + Project Conditions ® East Washington Street/' Southbound 101 Ramps Westbound East Washington Street approach left turn lanes Mitigation TRA-1: Implementthe improvements to the East Washington Street/Southbound 101 Ramps intersection as listed in Table 2-1, §TRA-1 a; of the FEIR. Finding: Changes or alterations have been. required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid. or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Impact TRA-2: Shopping Center Pedestrian and Bicycle Access and Parking, and Emergency Access Provision. The pedestrian~path and bicycle route through the central Promenade lacks definition for well-functioning, safe, combined pedestrian and bicycle access to and from Kenilworth Drive and the Highway 101 pedestrian bridge. The pedestrian and bicycle route components ~reguire eparaton, or sufficient space for bikes and pedestrians to separate. Concern exists for conflicts between shoppers, pedestrians using the pathway for through access, and bicyclists. This would be a signf cant safety concern. Bicycle parking must also meet city code. requirements. 'Mitigation `TRA-2; :Redesign the. site plan to include the mitigation measures as listed in Table 2- 1, §TRA-2, of the~FEIR: Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified.. in the EIR. 10 ~il~ .Impact TRA-3: Johnson Drive/Fairgrounds/City Swim Center-Skate Park Driveway Access Intersection. This intersection would be located orrthe inside of a 90-degree curve of Johnson Drive. It would pro~d'e a reconfigured access to the Fairgrounds, City swim center, and skate park: This four-leg ntersectonis proposed to aecommod'ate all turns;. and crosswalks would be :provided on the northbound Johnson Drive and Swim Center approaches to the intersection. The intersection configuraton;,(90-degree curve) raises sight Line concerns: swim center-skate park outbound vehicles turning onto Johnson Drive would have: difficulty seeing and being seen by Johnson Drive through traffic. These safety concerns would be significant impacts. (Thresholds #`l 7, # 19, #20) Mitigation TRA=3:.Provide stop-control.on all approaches,to'this intersection, with the exception of eastbound Johnson Drive through traffic (i.e. stop sign control the. swim center outbound approach, the Johnson Drive westbqund approach; the Fairgrounds northbound approach and the Johnson Drive eastbound left turn lane at this intersection). This would.. allow all vehicles on the intersection approaches to see acid be een, and would riot back up inbound through traffic on Johnson Drive. Omit the pedestrian crosswalk at this intersection and direct pedestrians to nearby intersections (also see-Mitigation Measure TRA- 4). Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect, as 'identified in the EIR. Impact TRA-4: Pedestrian Cir.•culation. The proposed location of the Kenilworth crosswalk creates an unsafe :condition as vehicles turning right from East Washington Street would slow down for the turning movement; but would then speed up on the. st"raight section, which provides pedestrian and bicycle .connectivity between the swim center and the shopping center. Similarly, pedestrian safety at'the two: proposed mid-road crosswalks- along Johnson Drive where through traffic; would not be slowed by signal or sign controls. Pedestrians nccessing.the swim center or skate par-k from;the nearby re-striped' parking spaces on the fairgrounds site (adjacent the Johnson Drive curve);'or pedestrians walking to or from other uses within the fairgrounds, would cross at the crosswalk, then have no Blear path to follow to access the swim center or skate park (proposed fencing and;laelc of space appear to block. direct access). :Mitigation TRA-4: Revise the site plan to include the measures as listed in Table 2-1, §TRA-4, of the FEIR 11 C'~~~~ Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Impact TRA-5: Construction Traffic. The project would. add construction traffic to East Washington Street, Lindberg Lane, Lakeville Street and other roadways serving the project site, raising concerns about pavement,damage on affected roads and disruptions to the flow of peak hour traffic. This -would be a significant impact. (Threshold #4) Mitigation TRA-5: Prior to construction, the project sponsor shall be responsible for developing a construction traff c control plan a.nd roadway (pavement). mitigation plan. The plan shall be submitted to the City Traffic Engineer for review and approval prior to construction. The elements are listed'in Table 2-1, §TRA-6, of the FEIR. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effecf as identified in the EIR. Impact TRA-6: Construction 'Traffic Impact to Pedestrian Access through the Site. Construction activity would have the potential to impede-pedestrian access through the site, to and from the. pedestrian bridge.. Mitigation TRA-6: Throughout construction a bicycle and. pedestrian accessway shall be maintained and kept separate, from. construction vehicle activity, accomplished with fencing and signage directing bicyclists and pedestrians through the site. Finding: Changes or alterations. have been required in, or incorporated'nto, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Impact. TRA-7: Increased motor vehicle .traffic would result in unacceptable level of service (LOS) at study intersections in the near=term with project plus buildou"t-of all other~approved projects and in the long-terrn'with the project plus buildout of the land uses envisioned in the Petaluma General Plan. There would be significant impacts at the following two study intersections: Lakeville Street / Caulfield Lane m Lakeville Street ~ D Street There would also be signfcant impacts on the following segments of U.S. Highway 101: o Petaluma Blvd. to Lakeville Hwy 12 ~'~L v ®Lakeville Hwy to Washington St. o Washington St. to.Redwood Hwy Finding: This impact cannot be feasibly mitigated and it willxemain at a level of significant and unavoidable. However, this impact was analyzed in the City's General Plan 2025 EIR for a similar development density and use to that proposed with the Project; and a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for the Lakeville Street/Caulfield Land and Lakeville Street/D Street intersections. The competing interests of building all roadway systems to meet peak travel period demands and~preserving the overall community character of the city has been resolved in Policy S-P-l0,,Erogram A of the General Plan, which notes that a level of service lower than LOS D for motor vehicles may be deemed acceptable. by the City in instances where potential vehicular traffic mitigations such as adding additional lanes or modifying signal timing, would conflict with.the Guiding Principles: Guiding Principle #2, preserve and enhance Petaluma's historic characters Guiding Principle #6, provide a range. of attractive and viable transportation alternatives; such as bicycle, pedestrian, rail and transit; and Guiding Principle #7, enhance downtown by preserving its historic character, increasing accessibility and ensuring a broad, range of business and activities and increased residential .activities. It has been determined that installing; additional apes or expanding vehicle capacity at the locations would conflict with these Guiding Principles. The U.S. Highway 101. freeway segments were analyzed in the General Plan 2025'.EIR, .but a Statement of Overriding Considerations was not adopted. No feasible mitigations to reduce traffic on these freeway segments to ales-than-significant level can be achieved since this roadway is under state and federal. jurisdiction. 13 i ~~ E~II~IT ~ ~II~II~TGS I2EGARI)ING AI.:'I'ERNA'I'IVES CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15126.6(a) states that an EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project or the location of the Project that would feasibly accomplish most of the basis objectives of the,Project and could avoid or substantially lessen any of the Project's ,.significant impacts.. The EIR evaluated the alternatives listed below. The City Council considered the alternatives but finds them to be infeasible for the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations set forth below pursuant to CEQA Sec. 21081(a)(3). N® PR®JECT ALTERNATIVE Under this alternative, the proposed project would not be constructed and the site would remain in its existing. condition. The existing Carter Little League field would remain on the site. Findang -Infeasible. This .alternative would avoid all of the Project's significant impacts. However, it would not achieve the Project's objectives and would not provide for the mix of retail and office uses allowed under 'the City's applicable General Plan land use designation and .zoning ordinance provisions. It would not generate the: anticipated revenue beneficial to the City's long-term fiscal health'nor provide the retail services identified as being the primary source of leakage from the City to other market locations. MITIGATED AI.:TEItNA'I'IVE l The Mitigated Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, except for the No Project Alternative. Under this alternative, the Project would be reduced from 380,000 square feet to 270,000 square feet of retail and 15;000 square feet of office for a total of 285,000 square feet of mixed-use development: No residential units would be constructed. While this .alternative -would not reduce traffic impacts to the Lakeville Street/Caulf eld 'Lane and Lakeville Street/D Street intersections: at the ~PM peak hour to less than significant 'levels, it would lessen the degree of those `impacts by, an amount proportional to the reduction of 95;000 square feet. of development,. almost all retail. The. Mitigated Alternative would 'lessen but not avoid Impact AQ-1, because the ;reduced project would still be, inconsistent with BAAMQD clean air planning assumptions; .which relied on the City's prior General Plan for use of the site as a school district facility: However; .average daily emissions of Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) and Nitrogen Oxide generated under the Mitigated Alternative would be less than the BAAMQD threshold; thereby reducing Impact AQ-3 to less than significant, in comparison to the. Project, for which Impact AQ-3 remains significant and unavoidable. Because the site 14 ~- ~`~' would still be developed, this alternative would have similar impacts related to construction or development activities: such as :hydrology or geology, and potential impacts to biological and cultural resources.. )Finding -Infeasible. This alternative would still provide an overall mix of retail and office uses consistent with, the City's: applicable General Plan land use designation and zoning ordinance. Failure to provide precisely 380,000 square feet of proposed development is not, in itself, a failure to meet Project objectives sufficient to make the Mitigated Alternative infeasible. Nevertheless, the reduction in size of the Mitigated Alternative provides significantly less flexibility, variety, and capacity to accommodate a potential mix of uses than is presented by the Project. The Mitigated. Alternative would sprovide fewer local retail opportunities and stem ,retail leakage to areas outside of Petaluma to a lesser degree, with a corresponding effect on Highway 101 traffic because Petaluma residents would make more driving trips to shop in those other areas, compared to the: proposed Project: Fewer local jobs would be created.. The Mitigated Alternative would generate proportionally less anticipated revenue for the City in sales tax and property tax increment, which is sorely needed by the City in the current economic climate. For these reasons, the Mitigated Alternative is considered infeasible because it does not -fully meet the Project objectives of providing local retail opportunities, reducing excess traffic on Highway 1.01 from outbound shopping trips to other areas by Petaluma residents, alleviating retail leakage, creating local jobs, and providing sales tax and property tax increment revenue to the City. ALTERNATE LTSE ALTERNATIVE This alternative is designed to :include a combination of retail/office and residential uses. It includes 270,000 square feet of retail and 15,000 square feet of office for a total of 285,000 square feet of mixed-use development. However, .similar to the project concept previously analyzed in the 2007 Draft EIR, this alternative includes a residential component in the south and east of the site. Residential development would consist of 225 housing units on 9 acres. I+'indang -.Infeasible. This alternative would provide a greater mix of uses than proposed with the Project. However, it would. ':not lessen and would potentially increase significant impacts due to the increased overall density, especially with regards to, traffic, air quality, noise, .and utilities. The incorporation of the residential component would increase. vehicle traffic trips in the AM and PM peak. hours above the levels in the project: In addition, the proposed location of the residential component in this. alternative would present additional potentially significant impacts due to noise. and- air quality from the mix of surrounding uses .including, U.S. Highway 101 and the active fairgrounds uses, including the afternoon/evening motor speedway uses for much of the year. The City's noise. policies in the General Plan specifically discourage residential uses at locations within the 65 dB CNEL noise contour, and the residential site 15 ~~ t5 would occur within this contour requiring specific mitigations to address these impacts. Moreover, the addition of residential uses would require water and sewer facilities and usage levels far in excess of those proposed with the project. 16 ~'~b ,EXIII~I'I' C. STATEIVIEIVT OF OVEI2I2II~ING C.ONSII)ERA'I'IONS I. Legal basis sand Bachround Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the City Council of'the City of Petaluma adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts identified in the General Plan EIR as significant and unavoidable: (Resolution 2008-084 N.,C,S.,_Ma. y 8', 2008.) Although the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the "General Plan EIR, pursuant to the court decision `in. Communities for a~ Better Environment w. California Resources Agency, 103 Ca1.App. 4th 98, (2002), the City must adopt specific overriding considerations for this Project. The City Council has considered the information contained- in the. EIR and has fully reviewed and. considered all of the public, testimony, documentation;. exhibits, reports, and presentations included in the record of these proceedings. The Council finds that. each determination made in this Statement of Overriding Considerations is supported by substantial evidence set forth in the CEQA Findings and/or herein and/or in the record of proceedings. Many of the unavoidable 'en~ironrnental effects identified in the General Plan EIR that are applicable to the Project will be substantially~lessened by mitigation measures adopted with the General Plan .and by~ mitigation measures adopted for the proposed Project. Even with mitigation, implementation ~ of the. Project carries with it certain unavoidable adverse environmental effects as identified in-the General .Plan. The City Council specifically finds that to the extent that the dentfed adverse or potentially adverse impacts for the Project have not been`mitigated to acceptable levels, there are specific economic, social, environmental, land use, and other considerations that: support'approval of the Project. . Significant and `iJnavoidable'Impacts. The following unavoidable sgnf cant environmental. cumulative impacts identified in the General;Plan EIR apply to.the Project: Impact AQ-1,: Although the project is accounted- for in the City's new General Plan, the project exceeds.thelevel of development anticipated n'the regional clean air plan (2005 Ozone Strategy.), which was.based on the City's previous General Plan and its less- . 'intense development assumptions. Impact AQ-3'Theproject:would generate new emissions that would affect long-term air.quality. A majgrty of the emissions generatedby full build out of the project would be produced by traffic. 17 ~~~1 ® Impact TRA-7:;Increased motorvehicle traffic would result in unacceptable level of service (LOS) at study intersections. Build out of the land uses en~isionedin the Petaluma General Plan would result in significant impacts at the following two study intersections: ^ Lakeville .Street / Caulfield Lane ^ Lakeville Street / East D .Street There would `also be signfi~antimpacts at the following._segments of U.S. Highway 101: ^ Petaluma Boulevard to. Lakeville: Highway ^ Lakeville Highway to Washington Street ^ Washington Street to .Redwood Highway All applicable project-level General Plan policies, programs and :implementation measures which were adopted to reduce the sgnif cant and unavoidable cumulative effects relevant to the Project will be complied with, either by incorporation into the Project or through°mitigation measures. The City Council previously balanced the benefits of the General Plan 2025 against the significant and potentially significant adverse impacts identified in the General Plan EIR. The City now balances those uravoidable impacts that apply to future.development on the Project site against its benefits, and hereby.determines that. such unavoidable impacts are outweighed by the benefits of the Project as further -set forth below. II. benefits of .the Project 1. The Project will contribute to he City's. economy by providing both temporary and permanent jobs and a mixture of both full-time and part=tune: permanent jobs. General Plan Policy 9-P-LO encourages economic development that will enhance job opportunities ~fqr existing City residents, including, jobs that match the skills of unemployed or underemployed workers who live in Petaluma, commit to first source hiring. for workers who live in Petaluma, and pay wages that enable workers to live in Petaluma. The Project will provide both temporary and permanent jobs in the City of Petaluma, the majority of the jobs will be permanent. .According to the Fiscal and Economic Impact Analysis (Bay Area Economics, January, .2009) ("FEIA") as considered by the City Council on ;April 6, _2009; which is incorporated herein by reference, the Project. will provide approximately.388 temporary construction jobs, assuming a one year buildoutperiod. In addition, the Project would create 721 permanent jobs, with 667 jobs in retail. and related industry sectors, and 53 jobs in office-related sectors; this would be offset by the .anticipated' loss of 75 similar jobs elsewhere in the City in this retail sector as a result of the project. A majority of these would. be furl-time positions, though a significant minority would also. be part-time, due to estimates of staffing levels at retail establishments across 'the industry. The City's Living Wage Policy is not applicable to the project; however, as a .guide, it is anticipated that the jobs in construction, office, extraction, and related sectors would'pay above. the current living wage, while the jobs in 18 '~ '` ~. retail and service-related sectors would pay below the living wage, not counting tips where applicable. Therefore, the Project would provide a .mix of both temporary and permanent jobs; as well as full and part-time jobs serving a wide variety of employment sectors. 2. The Project will utilize local labor for both temporary and permanent employment to the maximum extent feasible. The Project applicant and/or its successors will use .good faith efforts to provide persons and businesses that ..reside or have their main office in the City of Petaluma opportunities for employment on the project. This will include local advertising, including but not limited to, local;newspapers; job boards, and existing recruitment centers for the purposes of recruiting temporary _ construction and permanent project labor needs. The applicant will submit `documentary.. proof of publication and/or outreach to staff. 3. The Project will utilize local point of sale for Proieet construction and related materials. The Project applicant and/or its successors will use good .faith efforts to commercially identify responsible parties who are persons or businesses which have a place of business in the City of Petaluma that are capable of providing 'those goods and materials that the applicant needs to procure and. construct the Project. The applicant will also use good faith efforts to provide these parties opportunities to supply these goods and materials for the Project. 4. The Project will pay development impact fees that will fund City services and facilities. According to the. FEIA, the project will generate $10,481.,097 in development impact fees to the City. These fees will offset the Project's service demands on a wide range of City agencies and departments; including, but not limited to, the aquatic center, library, open space and park land,. police, fire, public. facilities such as city hall, city administration, community center facilities, and traffic improvements: These fees will be collected at the time of building permit .issuance. Since that is anticipated to fall within the 2010 calendar year, payment would provide the City with a signif cant amount of revenue to address those pressing infrastructure and related needs which have the required nexus to the fees collected. 5. The Project will generate Petaluma Community Development Project Area (PCD Project Area) tax :increment funds that are used to fund Petaluma. ,Community Development Commission `(PCDC) activities for the benefit of economic development and affordable housing programs. The Project is aocated within the PCD Project Area and will generate an estimated $472;000 annually .in tax increment funds to the PCDC. No redevelopment funds have been committed to the Project. 19 ~-L~. 6. The Project will increase annual General Fund revenue to the City. General. Plan Policy 9-P-19 encourages the long-term fiscal. Health of Petaluma as the City continues to develop; balancing. fiscal concerns with economic, social, environmental, aril cultural values. The policy calls for the .expansion of the City's fiscal base, seeking economic benefits that yield net fiscal benefits to the City. According to the FEIA, the Project"is anticipated to generate approximately $:1.19.2 million in sales per year, of which 93".,percent,: are. anticipated to be taxable. Thus, the Project would generate $1,080,336 in sales tax revenue per year; annually, to the City's. General Fund, based on long-term projections. In addition, the City is anticipated to receive $25,875 annually from projected property tax revenues based on using current assessed land value combined with new development costs to determine value, as well as a one-time $9,548 in projected property transfer tax rates, ,$51,011 in annual property tax in-lieu of Vehicle- License-Fees (VLF) and :fees from licenses and related project-generated revenue. The General .Fund cost for the. City to provide ongoing services to the Project would include $77,235 for police, $37,407 for fire, $20,477 for public work"s and smaller amounts for ancillary public ser ices; therefore, the net fiscal impact to the General Fund would amount to $ L,039;084 annually. 7. The Project would si~ni_fcantly address the long-term rie~ative economic impact of retail leakage: Resolution 2008-189 N.C.S. ;requires analysis of retail market conditions and market factors for projects, and analysis of leakage of sales to other communities in those market sectors. The FEIA ~ defines .the Trade Area. for the analysis as the area from which the proposed retail uses in the Project are likely to draw customers, and shows significant leakage of .general merchandise stores; food stores, home. furnishings and appliances, building materials, and other retail stores. With the capture rate as assumed for the appropriate retail categories, the `Project would capture, a significant percentage of the leakage that presently occurs in several major retail. categories. According to the FEIA, the largest portion of this is in the General Merchandise. store category, with an estimated one-third capture., of 'the estimated $91.1 mullion in annual sales leakage, projected for 2011. Given the ack of competition in the electronics/appliances sector in Petaluma, capture ;is estimated at 60 percent of the total $25 million in leakage in this category. In the Other Retail store category, capture has been estimated at one-third of the $61.5 million leakage projected for, 2011, Capture of the '$57.Z million annual leakage in the Food .Store category; .however, would be limited. No capture is estimated for the home imprbvernent or building supply sectors. While the Project could have capture potential for retail uses within the Trade Area, these are projected to be insignificant compared to the net revenue potential and eakage capture. as a result of the Project. The leakage " analysis demonstrates that local residents are most likely- venturing to other nearby cities to shop due to the lack of preferred stores within the City. Therefore, the Project would .result in a net increase in the number of stores and overall retail, sales and'opportunities in Petaluma and provide its residents with shopping options within "the City that do not currently exist, thereby significantly addressing the retain leakage issue that presents both current and long-term economic detriment to the City of Petaluma. 20 ~' 8. The Project will. provide upgrades and new amenities to the Swim Center and Skate Park. General Plan Policy 6-P-13 supports :recognition, maintenance, and improvement to aquatics programs as a key element of Petaluma's Parks and Recreation Services. The Project will provide upgrades and improvements to the Swim Center and Skate Park that would not occur without the Project. Although some of these amenities and upgrades are required to mitigate potential impacts from the increased traffic on Johnson Drive, others are being provided by .the Project voluntarily to enhance or replace existing facilities, including consideration of disabled access in selecting- the design,, location, and capacity of the improvements. These improvements would include solar panels for increased energy efficiency, new pool covers, and new signage; as well as .lighting and landscaping that would significantly upgrade the appearance and function of the facility, and increase its attractiveness and .appearance for current and potential patrons. Other amenities, such as reconfigured parking and vehicular access, improved transit access, improved pedestrian and bicycle> access, and the .addition of a new pedestrian and bicycle entry area would increase the facility's overall visibility, attract increased patronage, and provide connectivity wth~enhanced pedestrian and bicycle connectors to be constructed as part of . the Project's improvements. 9. The Project has allowed for the relocation o£Kenilworth Junior High School The Project .Applicant, through its purchase of the project site .from the Petaluma City School .District, provided the funds necessary for the relocation of the Kenilworth Junior High School to its present site at 88 Riesling Road in the City of Petaluma. The new junior high school opened in 2006 and has improved facilities, buildings, and equipment for students. not. available at the old site. In addition, the .new site provides a much more environmentally superior location for the students in a learning environment that is far from the noise and air quality impacts related to the freeway and active fairgrounds uses surrounding the old Kenilworth site. 10. The Project will relocate the: Carter Little League. Fields on a timetable that will not disrupt-the little.lea~ue season. The Project Applicant, and the Petaluma National.. Little League have agreed to a timetable for therelocation of the. Carter Little League Fields from the. Project site to a new loc. ation•'at the Petaluma Junior High School. This agreement. will provide the little league facilities a location in an environmentally superior area far from the noise and air quality impacts associated. with the freeway and active. fairgrounds uses surrounding the current site. In addition, the new location will provide .for enhanced recreational opportunities at the school site that will benefit students as well as league activities. The relocation will be coordinated by all parties in a manner that does not disrupt the little league season nor disrupt educational activities at the new school site.. 21 ~~ ~~ III. Conclusion The City Council has considered the information contained iri the EIR and has fully reviewed and considered all of the public testimony, documentation, exhibits, reports, and presentations included in the record of these proceedings. The City Council finds -that each determination made in this Statement of Overriding Considerations is supported by substantial evidence set forth herein and/or in the CEQA Findings and/or in the- record of proceedings. Based on the foregoing and pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093., the City Council finds that the specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits thatahe Project will produce; as :described herein, outweigh the remaining significant and ,unavoidable adverse environmental impacts of the Project and render those impacts acceptable.. 22 ~, vy