Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 2003-049 N.C.S. 03/03/2003resolution No. 2003-049 N.C.S. ~~~ of the City of Petaluma, California ADOPTING FINDINGS AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND APPROVING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) FOR THE REDWOOD TECHNOLOGY CENTER PROJECT LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF NORTH MCDOWELL BOULEVARD AND OLD REDWOOD HIGHWAY, ADJACENT TO HIGHWAY 101 (APN 007-41.1-7, 9, 11, 18 and 19) The City Council of the City of Petaluma finds and determines that: WHEREAS, planning applications were filed by Basin Street Properties requesting approval of a general plan amendment, rezoning and Unit Development Plan to permit the construction of an office/research and development campus with 262,500 square feet of office/R&D space and a 7,500 square foot freestanding restaurant building pad; and, WHEREAS, the City of Petaluma is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) with respect to land development approval within the City limits; and, WHEREAS, consistent with the requirements of the City of Petaluma Environmental Review Guidelines and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the City determined that the proposed development had the potential to result in significant environmental effects. As a result the City decided to prepare an Environmental Impact Report, and a Notice of Preparation was published and distributed fora 30-day review period on January 18, 1999; and, WHEREAS, the City expanded the scope of the EIR to include a future development scenario for the adjacent Parcel C, owned by California Drive-In Theatres and further identified as APNs 007-411-020 & 021. The development scenario for Parcel C assumes the demolition of a movie. theater and its replacement with 115,323 square feet of free-standing discount store (including an open-air garden center), 10,454 square feet of restaurant space and 34,250 square feet of general retail space; and, WHEREAS, the City has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), dated October 2001. The City observed a 45-day public review period for the document, extended the comment period beyond the required 45 days, and held public hearings with the Planning Commission on January 8 and January 22, 2002; and, Resolution No. ~OO~_~4q N.C.S. WHEREAS, the City has evaluated the comments received by public agencies, utilities, organizations, special interest groups and person who reviewed the DEIR, and has prepared a Final EIR responses to comments received during the 45-day public review period; and, WHEREAS, said comments received on the DEIR, and a list of individuals, groups, organizations, and agencies commenting on the DEIR have been included in the Final EIR for said project, as required by Section 15132 of the CEQA Guidelines; and, WHEREAS, the custodian of record of proceedings for this project is the City of Petaluma Director of Community Development; and, WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 15097 of CEQA Guidelines, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared to outline procedures for implementing all mitigation measures in the Final EIR; and, WHEREAS, the Petaluma Environmental Review Guidelines and the CEQA guidelines require that the decision-making agency balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve a project. If these benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects may be considered "acceptable." The decision-making agency must state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations must be supported by substantial evidence in the record; and, WHEREAS, on June 10, and March 3, 2003, the City Council held duly noticed public hearings on the planning applications for the Redwood Technology Center, accepting all written and verbal reports and testimony. As part of this hearing process, the City Council has considered the Draft and Final EIR, recommendations by the Planning Commission and/or City staff, and comments received during the review process. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby make the following findings: 1. All of the significant impacts identified in the Final EIR, with the exception of Impact CIR-3 described further below, has been or can be mitigated to a level ofless-than-significant. 2. The Final EIR identifies one significant unavoidable impact: The Old Redwood Highway overpass across Highway 101 would deteriorate to unacceptable service levels (Impact CIR-3). 3. This impact would occur with or without the project because of capacity constraints on the existing two-lane freeway overpass. As outlined in the Resolution No. 2003-049 N.C.S. Page 2 FEIR (Table 7), the Redwood Technology Center Project would contribute to less than half of the additional traffic volume on the Old Redwood Highway overpass. 4. The Final EIR identifies Mitigation Measure CIR-3, which provides for a fair-share contribution to widen the overpass to provide four lanes. However, widening of the overpass prior to the completion of the project would not be economically feasible, since complete funding for the widening project, estimated in 1996 to cost $12 Million, is not secured. 5. Project Alternatives analyzed in the Final EIR. An EIR must describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, which feasibly could obtain most of the basic objectives of 'the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. The Final EIR analyzed four alternatives to the Redwood Technology Center project ("Center"): (1) No Development Alternative, (2) Mitigated Project Alternative, (3) Office-Only Alternative and (4) Pedestrian-Centered Alternative. The City adopts the Mitigated Project Alternative, which is the project as originally proposed, but with incorporation of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR, plus an on-site daycare facility as recommended by the Planning Commission. The City finds that the other three alternatives are either infeasible or would not achieve the basic objectives of the project. Findings for the other three alternatives are stated below: a. No I)evelopme~zt Alternative. Under the No Development Alternative, construction of the Center would not occur. The Center site would remain vacant, with the existing, vacant Pacific Theaters complex remaining in place on the adjacent site. Comparison to the Mitigated Project. The No Development Alternative generally would have fewer impacts than the Mitigated Project. Alternative, although would have substantially worse public policy impacts (site would .not be used for economic development and employment generation) and worse visual and urban design impacts. The No Development Alternative would fail to meet and promote nearly all of the objectives of the City and of the Center. Finding. The No Development Alternative is hereby rejected because it would fail to meet and promote nearly all of the project objectives, and would not fulfill the General Plan goal of utilizing the site for Resolution No. 2003-049 N.C.S. Page 3 economic development and employment opportunities (particularly higher-paying opportunities) for Petalumans. b. Office-Only Alternative. The Office-Only Alternative assumes that the proposed Redwood Technology Center project would be developed as originally proposed; however the Pacific Theaters site would be developed only with 290,000 square feet of office uses, rather than the retail uses presently envisioned. Comparison to the Mitigated Project. The Office-Only Alternative was developed primarily to address land use alternatives for the adjacent Pacific Cinemas property (Parcel C), and is not relevant to the Redwood Technology project. With adoption of recommended mitigation measures, the Office-Only Alternative would be equivalent to the Mitigated Project Alternative (with respect to the Center which is the subject of these findings, but not with respect to the Pacific Theaters development which is not the subject of these findings). Finding. The Office-Only Alternative is hereby rejected as infeasible because in addition to the development originally proposed on the project site (Parcels A and B) it also envisions office development on an adjacent property that is not owned by the project sponsor. Furthermore, a separate pending application has been submitted for the Pacific Theaters property, which proposes a retail development on that property (Parcel C). With regard to the one significant unavoidable traffic impact, the Office-Only Alternative would not reduce this impact to a less-than- significant level. c. Pedestrian-Centered Alternative. Under the Pedestrian-Centered Alternative, the Center would be developed with the same square footage of office/research and development uses as the Mitigated Project Alternative, but the site plan and office buildings would be redesigned to front on the street edge of North McDowell Boulevard (the main public access to the site) and Redwood Way (on the internal portion of the .site). To meet flood protection requirements, these buildings would have to be elevated seven to ten feet above the grade of the adjacent sidewalks and roadways, and would have to include parking underneath. Comparison to the Mitigated Project. While the Pedestrian-Centered Alternative site plan included in the Final EIR was intended to further facilitate pedestrian circulation on the site, this alternative was developed prior to completion of the hydrological analysis of the project, and does not take into account the measures that would be necessary to meet the flood protection requirements of the project. Specifically, the Pedestrian-Centered Alternative would require that the buildings that front the intersection of North McDowell Boulevard Resolution No. 2003-049 N.C.S. Page 4 and Redwood Way to be elevated (with parking underneath) seven to ten feet above grade of the sidewalks and roadways in order to meet run-off and flood protection requirements. The resulting building pad elevations would introduce certain aesthetic and massing issues that would threaten the desired effect of providing a more pedestrian- friendly environment on the site. Furthermore, the Final EIR concludes that the Pedestrian-Centered Alternative would have fewer traffic and circulation impacts than the Mitigated Project Alternative partially because the Pedestrian-Centered Alternative would include an on-site day care center that would reduce trips. The project sponsor, however, has decided to include in the Mitigated Project Alternative a day care center as recommended by the Planning Commission. Any other trip-reduction advantage of the Pedestrian-Centered Alternative over the Mitigated Project Alternative would be a reduction in midday trips (when roadways are relatively .less crowded), rather than peak hour trips. Finding: The Pedestrian-Centered Alternative is hereby rejected as infeasible because it would require the building pads proposed near the intersection of North McDowell Boulevard and Redwood Way to be elevated (with parking underneath) seven to ten feet above grade of the sidewalks and roadways, thereby negating the desired benefits of providing a more pedestrian-friendly environment on the site. Furthermore, with the incorporation of a day care center in the Mitigated Project Alternative, the Pedestrian-Centered Alternative would not be measurably better than the Mitigated Project Alternative relative to traffic and circulation impacts. Mixed-Use Alternative. In addition to the four alternatives mentioned above, during the review process for the project, a request was made that analysis of a mixed-use alternative be provided. A mixed-use alternative would place residential uses in an area completely isolated from any other residential or housing-related uses (the site is surrounded by a freeway, a major roadway and light industrial uses). There are no other residential uses located near the site. A mixed-use alternative would render the housing units relatively unmarketable, making amixed-use alternative economically infeasible. Statement of Overriding Considerations As indicated above, all of the project alternatives that were considered are either infeasible or would not achieve the basic objectives of the project. In addition, although the mitigation measures required by the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will reduce all but one significant impact to levels that are less than significant, the project will result in one significant unavoidable impact. This one remaining impact is acceptable in light of the economic, legal, social and technological benefits that the approval of the project will make possible. Resolution No. 2003-049 N.C.S. Page 5 The City Council finds that each of the overriding considerations set forth below constitutes separate and independent grounds for finding that the benefits of the project outweigh the significant unavoidable impact of the project and is an overriding consideration warranting approval of the project. These matters are supported by substantial evidence in -the record that includes but is not limited to the .Final EIR, staff reports and analyses, oral and written testimony, and other documents referenced in this Statement of Overriding Consideration and its adopting resolution. The principal benefits include, but. are not limited to, the following: 1. The Project will provide 262,000 square feet of office space that targets high-technology companies, thereby permitting expansion by Petaluma's existing high-technology companies and/or moving of new high- technology companies into Petaluma, consistent with Local Economy Goals 1 and 2, Objectives a, b and c. It is anticipated that, based on information provided by the applicant the project will primarily serve companies already in Petaluma and will be built in phases to serve those expansion needs. 2. The Project will provide an office and research and development campus with attractive pedestrian amenities and an on-site restaurant. 3. The Project will improve a site that presently is not in productive use and is surrounded by other development and a major highway, thereby improving the cohesiveness of the area. 4. The Project will increase the potential for new higher-paying employers to locate in Petaluma, consistent with Local Economy Goal 1 of the General Plan. 5. The Project will increase the potential for existing higher-paying employers to remain in Petaluma (by providing expansion spaces), consistent with Local Economy Policies 1 and 3, Objective b. 6. The Project potentially will increase the number of persons who both work and live in Petaluma, consistent with Local Economy Policy 7 of the General Plan. 7. The Project will provide employment opportunities for highly-trained workers. 8. The Project will be economically beneficial to the City of Petaluma by: a) generating retail sales taxes from the restaurant uses; b) generating significant property taxes; and c) generating significant tax increment revenue for the Redevelopment Agency, all of which are consistent with Local Economy Goal 2 and Objective g of the General Plan. Resolution No. 2003-049 N.C.S. Page 6 9. The Project will develop the site with appropriate uses in appropriate locations without causing downstream flooding increases or flood flow backups. 10. The Project will develop the site with attractive buildings and site layout that is consistent and compatible with surrounding developments and that is attractive and inviting to users and passersby. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) The City Council finds that the a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), attached hereto as Exhibit A, has been prepared in accordance with Section 15097 of CEQA Guidelines, and outlines procedures for implementing all mitigation measures in the Final EIR. Under the power and authority conferred upon this Council by the Charter of said City. REFERENCE: I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted by the Approved as to Council of thedCity of Petaluma at a (Regular) (Adjourned) (Special) meeting ~ for on the ........ 3 ............... day of .......Marc......................................, 20.~..., by the following vote: •••••••••• ••• •••••• City Attorney AYES: Canevaro, Harris, Healy, Moynihan, Vice Mayor O'Brien NOES: Mayor Glass, Torliatt ABSENT: None ATTEST: .................... ..................................................... City Cle k e Mayor Council File ................................... Res. No........2003-093........N.C.S.