HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 1A 02/08/20101.
February ~, 2010
CITY OF PETALUMA~ CALIFORNIA
AGENDA ~II,L
Agenda Title: Resolution Certifying a Final. Environmental Impact Report; Meeting Date: February 8, 2010
Resolution Making Findings and Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Meeting Time: 6:00 PM
Reporting Program. and Statement of Overriding Considerations; and
Resolution Approving a Vesting Tentative Map, for the Proposed East
Washington Place Project, located at East Washington Street and Highway
1 O 1; APNs 007-031-001, 007-241-002, 007-251-001, 007-473-040
Cate~ory: ^ Presentation ^ Appointments ^ Consent ®Public Hearing ^ Unfinished Business ^ New Business
Department: Director: /~jI Contact Person: Phone Number:
Planning Geoff Bradl ye~,~ Derek Farmer, Se i r 707-778-4301
Planning Manager Planner
Total Cost. of Proposal or Project: N/A Name of`Fund: N/A
Amount Budgeted: N/A Account Number: N/A
Recommendation: It is recommended'that the City Council take action on the following:
1. Resolution Certifying an Environmental Impact Report;
2. Resolution Making Findings, and Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations;
3. Resolution Approving the Vesting Tentative Map, subject to conditions of approval.
1. ^ First reading of Ordinance approved unanimously, or with unanimous vote to allow posting prior to second reading
2. ^ First reading of Ordinance: approved without unanimous vote: Ordinance has been published/posted prior to second.
reading; see Attachment
3. ^ Other action requiring special notice: Notice has been given, see Attachment
Summary Statement:
The applicant, Regency Petaluma, LLA, has applied for a Vesting Tentative Map and Site Plan and Architectural
Review to subdivide an approximately 33.74-acre property into six lots to develop the site into amixed-use
community consisting. of approximately 362,000 square feet of retail uses; including a proposed 13.9,000 square
foot Target 'store; and 16;000 square feet.of office space (the "Project"). The Planning Commission reviewed the
Project~on.No~ember.24 acid December 8, 2009. After deliberating,and taking public testimony the Commission
adopted- a Resolution: recommending the City Council certify the Final. Environmental Impact. Report and Adopt
a 1Vlitigatiori Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations. The Commission
split 3-3 on votes to recornmerid either. approval or denial of the Vesting Tentative Map, subject to conditions of
approval, and therefore, this resolution is presented without Commission recommendation. The CEQA actions
were separated into two resolutions after Planning Commission hearing,; because findings, adoption of an MMRP
and. adoption of a statement of overriding considerations are not required unless. the City. Council determines to
approve the Project.
Attachments to Agenda Packet Item:
A. Tables of Proposed and Recommended Conditions of Vesting Tentative Map Approval
B. Draft.Resolution Certifying Environmental Impact Report
C. Draft Resolution Making Findings and Adopting. a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and
Statement of Overriding.Considerations.
D. Draft Resolution Approving~a Vesting Tentative Map, subject to Conditions of Approval.
E. FEIR Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Table 2-1), updated
F. Letter received January 22, 2010; .from $ay Area Economics regarding Retail Market Impact Analysis
G. Letter from Frank Penry regarding emergency response times
H. Letter from Regency Centers on additional Conditions of Approval, dated January 19, 2010
Reviewed by Finance Director: Reviewed 6 Ci Attorne A rove b Mana ert
s~ ~ ~, S~ .... _, -
Date: ~ - -3 ' ~ ~ Date: Date: Z `~ /o
Rev. # Date Last Revised: ~ File:
2
CITY OF PE'I'ALUNIA, CALIF®RNIA
FEBRUARY 8, _2010
AGENDA REPORT
FOR
RESOLUTION CERTIFYING A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTREPORT; RESOLUTION MAKING
FINDINGS AND ADOPTING A,MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND
STATEMENT OF ®VERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS; AND RESOLUTION APPROVING A. VESTING
TENTATNE MAP, FOR THE PROPOSED EAST WASHINGTON PLACE PROJECT, LOCATED AT
EAST WASHINGTON STREET AND )E-IIGHWAY 101; APNs 007=031-001, 007-24.1-002, 007-251-
-001, 007-473-040
1. RECOMMENDATION:
Consider, and take appropriate action on Resolution Certifying a Final Environmental
Impact Report; Resolution 1Vlaking Findings and Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations; and Resolution
Approving a Vesting Tentative Map, subject to conditions of approval, for the East
Washington Place Project.
2. BACKGROUND:
The City Council considered the Final. EIR and Vesting Tentative Map for the Project
at a noticed public hearing on January 4, 2010. The Council discussed several General
Plan consistency and CEQA issues, which are more fully analyzed in the Discussion
section of this staff report. Potential additional conditions of approval and related
comments were offered by various council members for further review by staff, and
the Council continued the item to January 25, 2010. The hearing was further
continued on January 25, 2010 to a special Council meeting on February 8, 2010.
Comments regarding potential conditions of approval are outlined in Attachment A,
which is divided into three sections:
1) Items that are addressed through existing Conditions of Approval, Mitigation
Measures already applicable to the Project, and listed in Table 2-1 of the FEIR, or
existing executed agreements between the applicant and associated parties. In
some cases, where noted, additional language has been added to the conditions or
mitigations to specifically address the item proposed.
2) Items suggested by either the Planning Commission or City Council that have been
analyzed as `feasible, have a project nexus or adequate regulatory basis, and/or have
been agreed to. by the applicant, and therefore are recommended as additional
conditions of approval by staff.
3
3) Items potentallymore.appropriate for consideration as a component of Site Design
and Architectural Review by the Planning Commission.
Potential Conditions of Approval.that lack`a basis in the City's existing.policies, codes,
standards or other regulatgry authority, lack• a required:-nexus to identified project impacts and/or
lack a rough proportionality to burdens created by the project are not included in Attachment A
to this agenda report. Absent agreement of the. applicant, staff does not recommend such
conditions.
3. DISCUSSION
A. General Plan Land Use Consistency.
Several comments at the January 4 hearing question whether the project contains a "robust
combination" of uses, as described:in the General Plan 2025 (GP) land use designation for Mixed
Use; and whether the project conforms to General Plan subarea policies for (i) the East
Washington Corridor and the (ii) Washington Core.
The project is zoned'MU1B, described in the Implementing Zoning Ordinance (IZO) as
",...applied to largerparcels alongthe East Washington Street; Petaluma Boulevard North and
Lakeville Street corridors. The parcels in these zones vary in size and are typically located
.adjacent to residential,zones." (IZO, §4,020.L.) The MU1 zone is "... intended for pedestrian-
oriented, mixed-use development with ground-floor retail. or office uses adjacent to the
Downtown Core, and in other areas ofthe city where existing auto-oriented commercial areas are
intended for improvement into pedestrian-.oriented mixed use development." (IZO, §4.020.L.)
Mixed Use and the Washington Core Subarea.
The meaning of the General Plan phrase, "robust combination of uses," is further developed
through the General .Plan subarea_ policies (GP p. 1-7.) The proj"ect, except for a single layer of
area. along East Washington Street in the East Washington Corridor, is primarily subject to the
Washington Core subarea policies.
For example, Policy P-2-77 for the Washington Core subarea commits the City to "[c]apitalize
on opportunities to provide Regional and Community Commercial ;facilities at the old
Kenilworth school site, while integrating new development with'the intended scale and new
character for E. Washington Street." (GP, p. 2-18.) Policy 2-P-81 "Permit[s] a range.of large and
small-sized retail and office as well as residential uses on the former Kenilworth School site...."
(GP, p. 2-18.) For the E. Washington Corridor frontage, "....the intent of mixed use is to
recognize a broad range of uses. along [the corridor] including both commercial and residential
uses; a mixture of uses on these smaller individual parcels is encouraged but not required." (GP,
p. l-7.)
The Mixed Use descriptions iri the General Plan do not require that any.individual project
contain specific uses, or that'residential be included in any or all specific parcels.
4
Thee general description of Mixed Use m the General Plana-was intended to be implemented with
expanded definitions in the City's development code. However, .that planning effort has been
hindered due to budgetary considerations..
The project is proposed with 365,000 square feet of mixed large and small scale retail and 16,000
square feet of second -floor offices. Ultimately, it is up to the Council to determine. whether
providing regional and community commercial .opportunities at the site justifies a project with
approximately 95% in retail use, albeit ~in a mix of retail and. office uses. In evaluating this
question under the current descriptions of Mixed Use in the General Plan, the Council may
consider whether ample opportunities exist elsewhere in the Washington. Core and/or East
Washington Corridor areas to provide other office and residential uses, such that the subareas as
a whole will when developed include a "robust combination of uses."
The project EIR states that while. the absence of a residential component in the project is "...not
entirely consistent with the .City's land use policy framework, it would not result in a significant
physical impact nor would it conflict with one or more policies adopted for the purpose of
avoiding. or mitigating sigrifcant environmental impacts." The EIR therefore concludes that
this impact is less than signif canf. (DEIR, p. 4.9-7.) Because. CEQA is concerned with physical
effects on the environment (CEQA:Guidelines §15358(b)), the Council's decision on General
Plan land use consistency is ari issue relevant to project approval, but not necessarily a CEQA
issue or one of EIR adequacy.
2. East Washington Corridor Subarea.
The project has a limited amount of frontage on East Washington. Street. The East Washington
Street frontage not taken up by the 101 onramp is proposed for two-story mixed retail and office
buildings and an open space plaza/gateway with a large public art feature and pedestrian
amenities. The buildings SOl and S02 are sited at the front of the area, close to East Washington,
with parking in the rear, and facades and access from both East Washington and the project
interior. Pedestrian access to the project will likely occur through the open plaza area as well as
via Kenilworth Drive. These features meet the intent of the East Washington Street subarea
policies, which are intended to apply 'one parcel deep,' along East Washington Street. The
Washington. Core: subarea policies are more directly relevant to the remainder of the project
which does not front on East Washington Street.
Connectivity and Long Range Planning
Some commenters suggested that this project should be responsible .for aspects of long range
planning for the larger subarea, including the fairgrounds; a connection to the library, a street
grid connection to East D Street and/or connectivity to the SMART train depot. Although this
project is one of the larger parcels available in the subarea, it is not itself responsible .for
resolving issues more pertinent to later development of other parcels, for master planning or
achieving more than its share of a long range planning vision. Particularly for CEQA purposes,
this project must treat the adjacent properties and existing conditions in their current physical
state: The current fairgrounds uses will continue unti12023, absent renegotiation. of the
fairgrounds lease. However, the project can be evaluated to determine whether it would impede
5
larger city goals for the subarea, such as permitting. the extension of East D Street, creating a .grid
street system for areas adjacent to the EastD Street and Payran neighborhoods, and multi-modal
transportation connectivity through and from the site.
The project does improve connectivity from the 1'01 pedestran/bicycle overpass to the project
site and beyond. As the project is expected to be conditioned, it will improve bicycle and
pedestrian circulation and provide pedestrian .and bicycle amenities. ,The configuration of
Johnson Drive will riot in itself :prevent later'integration and.possible reconfiguration, if
connection to a street grid and/or the extension of East D Street is proposed as part of eventual
development of all or a part of the fairgrounds site: The pedestrian promenade that begins at the
Kenilworth edge of the project could be connected to an eventual East. D Street extension,
although its present location does not line up directly with East D Street.
B. General `Plan Economic Policy Consistency
. Like the land use analysis discussed,above, the consistency with General Plan economic policy is
not primarily a,CEQA issue, because. it does not involve physical impacts on the environment,
with the potential .exception of urban decay and physical blight, discussed in Section C. below.
Commenters associated wth.the Living Wage Coalition and others contend that the project, with
relatively lower-paying retail jobs,, is riot consistent with General Plan Policy 9-P-1. That policy
states that "paying wages commensurate with the cost of living in_Petaluma" is one of nine
techniques suggested for attracting, and retaining basic :economic activities that bring dollars into
the local economy...." In addition to Policy 9-P-1, Chapter 9 of the General Plan contains
eighteen other policies, each with multiple- factors for consideration, in an overall assessment of
economic health and sustainability. Multiple and detailed specific policies applicable to retail
growth are contained in Policies 9-P-12 through 9-P-18, and recognize the need for retail
development as part of a long term strategy for the city's economic health. Encouragement of
uses which provide wages "commensurate with the cost of living in Petaluma" is one General
Plan goal, but he General :Plan does not give'that policy priority over the multiple policies which.
encourage and specifically identify the proposed project location for retail growth "to expand
and enhance the diversity of,retail options....." (GP Policy 9-P-13; see also 9-P-14.) The Council
has the ultimate task of weighing various General Plan goals and policies, and its interpretation
and balancing of those policies. is given great deference in the :event of later legal challenge. The
inclusion of specific General Plan policies encouraging and targeting areas for°retail growth is
an;implcit,reeognitontbat retail development has benefits for the City other~than.those that
come from higher wage jobs.
C. Sufficiency of Urban Decay Analysis in the EIR:
Two documents were prepared by Bay Area Economics (BAE) , a November 2008 Retail
Market Impact Analysis, Appendix D to the DEIR; and the January 2009 Fiscal and Economic
Impact Analysis {FEIA), prepared pursuant to city ordinance and reviewed by the City Council
in April, 2009: The FEIA goes beyond the requirements of CEQA and evaluates the net fiscal
.:impact of the project on the city. Objections have been raised by several parties that potential
.impacts of the project on specif c stores in the downtown area were not evaluated; that data used
6
to evaluate the continued viability of Kmart at Petaluma Plaza North was not adequate and a
further study of potential .impacts on Kmart;should be done; and that despite the conclusions of
both BAE studies, the commenters' opinion is that urban blight is likely to be caused by the
project.
Urban decay for CEQA study purposes requires more than the,possibility of vacant storefronts,
or failure to meet sales targets for prospective tenants of the,project or for existing potential
competitors. Under CEQA;~it is only when a vacancy can be expected to create actual physical
deterioration and blight that. significant physical impacts occur. The FEIA looks at the overall
impact of potential competition. from the project with downtown and other city retail areas based
on a general expected "retail mix for the project with Target. (without a:full service grocery) as the
primary anchor tenant. The FEIA finds qualitative differences which'the •consultants believe will
avoid the prospects of bus"mess failures or vacancies for properties in the downtown area. A
study of the project's impact on individual businesses in the downtown area is not required by
CEQA, and likely could not be more than speculation without a defined tenant mix for
comparison. Impacts on other major. retail .areas of the City, Petaluma Plaza and Plaza North,.
Washington Square; the Petaluma Village .Premium Outlets and Redwood Gateway Center
(Kohl's). were analyzed by.comparing likely project tenants in existing apparel and other
categories. An analysis was provided suggesfing that even with some negative sales impacts on
general merchandise and/or.apparel stores, reduction in existing sales would not be severe
enough to necessarily cau e;business failures. Even ifthe entire.-loss in;general merchandise
sales .from existing businesses in 20.11 were assigned to Kmart, the FEIA concludes that the
existing Kmart sales per square;foot would still remain•above the:national average for Kmart
stores. Baseline sales are measured as of 2008, and take into account the current recession. In
support of its conclusion that the, project will not cause urban. decay°at Plaza North, the Retail
Market Impact Analysis, Appendix D to' the EIR, also discusses likely retenanting of the Kmart
space should vacancy .occur, ~based in part on the center's strong locational advantages, adjacency
to Petaluma Plaza, otherexisting stores in both centers, customer draw from the new Raleys, and
experience elsewhere with xetenarited Kmart locations.
The comments on urban decay largely lack substantiating, expert opinion or supporting data.
Even if that had been provided,'the Council ;is entitled to rely on -the expert studies contained in
the two BAE reports, if it_ finds them persuasive. CEQA.does not require the City to undertake
all: requested additional studies, if existing information- provides an adequate basis for decision.
If the Council .does not choose to accept the conclusions in the FEIA and the Retail Market
Impact: Analysis; it should' identify substantial evidence in the record which supports a contrary
conclusion that~signficant physical impacts on the environment. will be caused by the project's
retail characteristics (for purposes of FEIR certification); .and/or that different financial
calculations or data change the FEIA's~ assessment of net=financial impacts on the city (for
purposes of assessing the 'benefits of project approval.)
D. Traffic Mitigation from the Rainier Crossing
One commenter suggests that the City cannot rely on Rainier to mitigate long-term cumulative
traffic impacts from General :Plan ,buildout because it is not fully funded. When the city adopted
updated traffic development impact fees in May,, 2008, it did so on the basis of a nexus and cost
7
study for identified. traffic improvements, which included costs and identified funding sources
for a Rainier crossing. (Fehr & Peers,. May 2008j: Based on this' study, the' traffic impact fee was
set by Resolution No. 2008-095. When a, fee is set by city resolution after .the preparation of an
adequate nexus study establishing-the basis for and the amount of the fee, payment of that fee is
adequate to serve as mitigation for the long term cumulative traffic impact of the project.
E. Retail Market Impact Analysis
One commenter questions references in two DEIR footnotes at pages 4.11-4 and 4.11-8 to a
November 2008 Administrative Draft of the Retail .Market Impact Analysis (Bay Area
Economics, January 2009),. which is attached as Appendix D to the DEIR. Attachment F to this
staff report is a letter from Raymond Kennedy of BAE confirming that, the final version of the.
report. attached as Appendix'D is the. version used for- the evaluation in the DEIR, and the
reference to an earlier version in the DEIR footnotes was merely an error. Acopy of the
Administrative Draft report dated November 2'008 is available for review online and at the
Community Development Department.
F. Emergency Response Times for Fire, EMS and Police -Transportation Standards of
Significance Criteria #16
A supplemental letter from.Frank Penry, the City's traffic consultant, is provided as Attachment
G in regard to Transportation.Standards of Significance Criteria:#16, DEIR, p. 4.13-47. The
criteria are whether the project-would "Create a substantial decrease. in travel speeds on primary
emergency response routes such that emergencyvehicles would be significantly delayed." Based
on consultation with the City,Fire Chief and Police Chief, who agree with the conclusion, Mr.
Peary concludes that fire,. EMS'and police vehicle emergency response times would not be
significantly delayed because of project traffic.
Draft resolutions, allowing the Council to approve the Final Environmental Impact Report, the
Mitigation Monitoring: and .Reporting: Program. and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and
the. Vesting Tentative Map, are provided should, after consideration of the staff reports, public
comments, applicant presentation, and all other relevant information, the Council determine to
do so.
4. )E+'INANCIAL IMPACTS:
This is a cost recovery project; the. applicant will. pay for the cost of processing the application.
The project is.also ubjec't to all City development fees and related mitigation. fees. Pursuant to
the. Fiscal and Economic: Impact Analysis (FEIA) considered by the City Council on Apri16,
2009, the~Project will .generate a net fiscal surplus of approximately $1,03:9,084 annually to the
City of Petaluma General Furid; minus impacts to City services-..Revenues from Development.
Impact. Fees are expected to total approximately $10,000.,000'and. the Petaluma Community
Development Commission will receive approximately $472,000 in annual Tax Increment
revenues. No redevelopment funds have been spent to support the Project:
8