HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill Attachments K-P 06/14/2010Attachment K
..
~~~~C
March 8, 2010
Derek Farmer
Community Development Deparfinenf
City Of Petaluma
11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
via Electronic IlAail
RE: East Washington Place Public Art Program / Intent fo Return to Petaluma Public Art
Committee
Derek,
As previously requested, let this letter erve.as formal notice that Regency and its consultants intend to
take the East Washington Place art program back to the Petaluma. Public Art Committee (PPAC) for -
further review after we have,received design approvals from the. City: We recognize that various people
in the community have expressed. concerns on the potential:over-use of the."egg" theme. While we are in
compliance with the City's ordinance, we also want to ensure that the art features will be viewed as a
benefit to the whole. community. -
If you have any further questions or concerns please contact meat (925) 279-1800.
Best Regards,
~--~
~~ - ~~~
Ryan McNamara
Regency Centers
2999 OAK ROAD, SUITE 1000 . WALNUT CREEK, CA 94597.925.279.1600.888.797.7348 .FAX: 925.935:5902 . REGENCYCENTERS.COM
~~~
r~
Attachment L ~
~ ~ .~
March 18, 2010
Mr. Geoff Bradley
The M-Group
11 English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
Re: East Washington. Place -Second Story Office Space; Restaurant Uses
Dear Geoff:
Thank you for your continued efforts in processing our design application.. In. recent SPAR
hearings, the question was raised of whether building square footage could be relocated along
Kenilworth Drive,. and potentially include second story uses..; As requested in our March 9,
2010 meeting, the following- outlines Regency's .concerns over increasing the amount of
second story office space within the East Washington Place project: Additionally, in our March
Stn meeting, you requested ..general information regarding anticipated restaurant uses within the
project, and parking demand of such uses, which are also outlined below.
Given the uncertainty of the potential Fairgrounds development, Regency would not feel
comfortable moving buildings from the freeway side.of the-site to .Kenilworth. By breaking up
the buildings the pedestrian circulafiori would be hindered as customers would have to walk
further and potentially through the parking lot. This relocation of buildings would also reduce
the parking field in front of the major tenants, which experience tells us are most preferred by
customers. Target in particular would have great concerns over further reduction in their
immediate parking field.
Regarding the potential of reallocating ground floor square footage to second story uses,
Regency's primary concern is a severe lack of market demand for such space. With an office
vacancy rate of over'30% in Petaluma, we strongly believe--such space would remain vacant
for many years to come.. Regency owns. several shopping centers. with second story office
space in markets with much more vibrant office leasing markets,; yet still we have significant
challenges maintaining occupancy in such. spaces. Jn our experience, if given the choice
between leasing space in a hopping center versus an office complex,, suburban office tenants
much prefer to locate in an all-office environment where they do not have to compete for
parking and deal with shopping center crowds. As such, we believe that reallocating ground
floor retail usesto second-story office uses would diminish viable,. sales tax-generating space
in favor of unmarketable space -clearly not a scenario the City, the community, nor Regency
would desire.
Regarding restaurant uses, we anticipate a variety of sit-down, fast casual and ..quick service
restaurants within the project. Such uses will be strategically placed in locations that offer
2999 OAK ROAD, SUITE 1000 . WALNUT CREEK, CA 94597.925.279.1800.800.797.7348 .FAX: 925.935.5902 . REGENCYCENTERS.COM ~ ~~
outdoor table service, maximize visibility and create synergy between other uses within the
shopping center. V1/hile restaurants could be located in any of the Shops buildings, we believe
they would have the most impact in. Shops S1 through S8.. While, it is difficult to anticipate the
exact amount of restaurant space, it is conceivable that we would allocate as much as 4'0% of
the shops space.to food uses,; code and parking requirements permitting. As you are aware,
.restaurant uses have significantly higher parking demands, further substantiating our past
arguments against reducing parking within the project (our current parking ratio is already at
the very minimum most; retailers and restaurants. will accept). It is Regency's goal to offer our
customers an exciting retail experience, of which restaurant uses are- a significant part, and we
must provide adequate parking to ensure customer access to such uses.
Hopefully the above provides. the background you need to address these items in your staff
report. We look forward to a :final. decision and vote at the next Planning Commission meeting
on April 13th. Please. let me know if anything additional is 'needed.
Sincerely,
Ryan M. Nickelson
Vice President, Investments
cc: Derek Farmer, M-Group
Judy Davidoff, Sheppard Mullin
Pete Knoedler, Regency Centers
'2999-0AK'ROAD, SUITE 1000 . WALNUT CREEK, CA 94597.925.279.1800.800.797.7348 . FAX: 925.935.5902 . REGENCYCENTERS.COM ~ ~~
Attachment M
~~'~
March 31, 2010
Geoff Bradley & Derek Farmer
Community Development Department
City of,Retafuma
11 .English Street
Petaluma, CA 94952
RE: Request to Enforce Vehicle Code.on°Johnson'Drive
Geoff and Derek,
v1a Electronic Wail
You have informed us ttiat therGity of Petaluma may, wish to limit truck traffic on Johnson Drive once our
East Washington Place project is constructed and operational. Regency does not object provided.that
truck fraffic for the East:lNasfiington Place'Rrojecfbeallowed Eo access Kenilworth'prive and East .
Washington Piace from: Lindberg.Lane, without limitation or:impairment, in accordance with the. plans
,.
approved~by the<City.on February 8,.201.0. With that uriderstanding, this~~lettermay serve as Regency's
formal request #o the City of'Petaluma to.enforce the City's Vehicle Code on Johnson l?rive once
constructed and operational, assuggested in the February 8, 201.0 City Staff report (Attachment.A):
Should you have any questions ar :concerns regarding this fetter please contact me at (925) 279-1800.
Best Regards,
r- ~~
C........~-f ~ -~^
Ryan _cNamara
Regency Centers
F
E
rt
P
~-
F
2999 OAK,ROAR, SUITE 1000 . WALNUT CREEK, CA 94597.925.279.1800.888.797.7348 .FAX: 925:935.5902 . REGENCYCENTERS.COM
~~
Planning Commission as part of design review."
"The applicant: shall install proj ect related signage at
locations on East Washington Street, Payran Street
and Lindberg Lane to direct Project traffic to enter
anal exit East Washington Place by routes which do
not enter the East D Street neighborhood. The
signage content and location shall be approved by the
City Engineer as part. of the improvement plan
process before submission to the Planning
Commission as part of design review."
Truck traffic prohibition on Johnson While the applicant has agreed to either a complete
Drive ban, or .prohibiting. "truck. traffic on Johnson Drive
between the hours of 6:00 am. and 9:00 p.m., there is
a current legal impediment to imposing this condition
now.
The City's ability to regulate traffic on City streets is
limited to authority expressly granted in the California
Vehicle Code. All .local traffic regulation not
expressly authorized in the Vehicle Code is
. considered pre-empted by the State, and subject only
to State regulation. Because Johnson Drive is
proposed' as a private easement construcfed and
maintained by the: applicant;. the City must first have
the applicant requesf that the City enforce the Vehicle
Code on Johnson Drive. It then must adopt an
ordinance authorizing City enforcement of the
Vehicle Code on Johnson Drive, and finally, the City
must amend.. its Municipal Code provisions in Section
" 11.52.070 to add Johnson Drive to the list of streets
on which truck traffic,~is prohibited. All of these steps
are necessary before'the City can impose a truck ban
on Johnson Drive.
Staff .recommends. that the applicant voluntarily
provide the City its written request to enforce .the
Vehicle Code on Johnson .Drive, and that the city
begin the process to adoptthenecessary legislation.
OiUgrease traps for post°constniction These will be included in the construction documents
use. for the project and will be reviewed and. approved by
staff. No separate condition is required as these
elements will be incorporated into plans.
14
-~--
' Attachment N
~~ Petaluma Neighborhood Association f~ ~ }~ ` `~,
,, __
40 hourth Stzeet - `Petaluma CA 94952
s®~® ._ _.., ~.
f _ J~u
r~
App 0 7 Maio
Petaluma Planning Commission April 7th, 2010
11 English. St. CITY MANAGER ~
Petaluma, CA 94952
RE: Submit to Administrative Record for East Washington Place
Dear Planning Commissioners:
In 2004, a City Ordinance was passed that established the terms ,and conditions for an
easement to improve the access to the East Washington Place-project. This easement is
located in the EWP project plans where 3ohnson Dr. is proposed.
In the PC's current deliberations on this project, it is the.purview of the Commissonto
review and recommend changes to the project's internal,crculation, its egress, and.its
ingress.
Despite erroneous advice from-the Assistant City Attorney, the PC is completely wi hin.
its .rights and responsibilities to look at the configuration of Johnson Dr. As currently
planned,lohnson Dr.. has a stranglehoPd on our_existing Swim Center and Skateboard
Park. These facilities, which encourage healthy vigorous physical activity by the
community's children and adults, will be surrounded by multiple lanes of traffic on all
four sides. This traffic will frequently be moving at a very slow speed, and in fact will
often be gridlocked.
The exposure to carcinogenic exhaust and particulate matter by ..adults and children (who
are especially sensitive to the harms caused by toxic pollutants} is clearly detriment~I to
the community (see fig. 1). We fee( that this dangerous situation must be rectified by the
PC.
We wish to bring to your attention that .the easement is not now in place, either
contractually:or by law. The enabling ordinance merely established an option for
Regency' Centersto exercise when it received a1I of its project entitlements and .met all of
its obliga€ions:as specified in the ordinance.
In addition, the citation, of the specific CEQA clauses used to justify creation. of the
option was inappropriately applied by staff. In fact, the ections cited, i 5061(b)(3),
15303, 15304 and 1S333''specifically state thatthey are NOTto be used to bypass CEQA
review, which is exactly what has happenedin this case. The language in these sections
states categorically that they are not to be used for major development pro}ects that will
clearly have negative environmental impacts, yet that is exactly the kind of clearly
foreseen project the sections were applied to:
~~~~a
. ~ ~- a.
This option: was based on false pretenses for its justification and is therefore girestionable
as to its legal validity. Furthermore;. it has not yet been exercised at this time. Therefore,
should the PC direct that the road configuration be.changed! to better ,protect the public's
use ot: its :public facilities; the easement.can be readily renegofiatzd~with the City. If for
no other reason, because ofthe misapplication of the CEQA language,. it should"be
redrafted. And that provides the perfect opportunity to rectify this tragic road design flaw
as well.
General Plan Compliance Solution:
The Petaluma Neighborhood Association as represented by the list of residents below feel
that a more. appropriate road configuration is necessary to achieve a safer, less hazardous
means of ingress/egress with less impacts on our adjacent public use area. The road
configuration that we have provided (see. fig. 2) has Johnson Dr: extending further south,
intersecting into Fairground"s Dr. This configuration will. reduce the exposure to auto-
generated pollution and improve access to the site from Payran St: as well.
In addition, we recommend that the short extension of Kenilworth Drive from Johnson
Dr. to East Washington St. that is being proposed as a means of vehicular ingress and
egress become apedestrian/ •bike access point only (seeattached drawing).
Both recommendations being proposed by the community have been stipulated within the
pages of our General Plan:
1) Petaluma General .Plan 2025 Goal 2-G- i 3: Washi ngton Core (page 2-18} " 2-P-79-
Extend traditional street grids as opportunities arise."
2) Petaluma General Plan 2425 Goal 2-G-4: Washington Corridor (page 2-9}
" 2-P-23 Facilitate~development patterns that provide an urban edge along East
Washington Street, providing visual continuity and cohesiveness anti increased
safety." "C. As developrlient/redevelopmentoccursrequire the.reduction of or
elitnination of curb cuts along East VJashin ton Street; and encourage. potential
consolidation of lots to maximize access from side streets."
The above recommendations for a.raad reconfiguration does not rrlake this large auto-
centric commercial. retail complex.an ideal project for this-site, but it at leastprovides
some. improvement ontlie current poor design. By puIlingthe Johnson Dr. away from the
pool center and by°converting the Kenilworth Drive/East Washington Street extension to
a pedestrian promenade, we.canhelp to reduce the trafficimpacts. on the surrounding
public amenities while at the same time making the design proposal align better
Petaluma's General Plan.
""'T'his section is iriterided to promote infiiI developn~ent.within urbanizzd az~eas. The ciass;consists of
environmentally benign in-ft{I projects which arecansistent with local general plan and zoning requirements.
This class is not intended io be applied to projects which would resultin anysigni~carit traffic, noise, air
quality, or water quality eiT'ects."
~~~
Sincerely, Paul h:rancis
The following Petaluma residents have agreed to this road reconfiguration request:
Stephanie Sanchez Michelle Lyman
John & Cyntha.,Rathkey L. Padilla
Hope Rainer Michele Woodbury
Linda Kalb Stepanie & Frank Galvan
Gene Hamm Barry Bussewitz
Mary Glardon 1\Ticky Oviit
Greg Mitchell Shelly & Dave Trumbo
Peter Sheridan Moniz Stess .
Janice Cader Matt & Laree Maguire
Ji.m Daveport Sarah' & John Gorman
Paul Allen Craig Stammler
Alexander Robb Melanie Dado
Karin Burger Chip Reese
Bill Phillips Brian Way
Mariette Leufkens Cara Patrick
Michelle Lyman Megan I/dwards
Kelly Collins Jim Thomas
Dale Axelrod. Brian Williams
Boh Moyer Jofu1 Crowley
Cc: City 1Vlanagzr John Brown
Project Planner.Derek Farrier
Mayor Pam Torlatt
U;ice Mayor David Glass
N-~
j !' ;l
I
-~
YISTiNG
viMERt IAI
R7H
I
Road Con€iguration wrapping
I
tightCy around pool center/skate park
~ proposed by Applicant (Figure'1 }
~ ~e_~®.
~~ t ~~ ~~ o - ~'~~~^
Pedles~'~~ _ +~ ~ _
r. aIlslLJt ~
~ ~, ~ '_ ,G ~ OL ~ '~~ ~ ~ .~ '
~ ~ A4 '" ~ ~, ~ y
;. i z ~- C ti r~;
} ~ ~ ~~ `L(
t ~ ~ : ~ `,~
-7...•, -
f
~.
Elt3S S7RFET '~~~ - J® 4JTH ~?~
.,
°- ~.,f
5+.
~~ y
S
di
! ~¢
•~
Q ~
Improved Road Configuration ~ ~ ;
proposed by Community ('Figure 2} ~ ~~ _ ~~ ~ ~ ` ~
C9 ~ `~„ ~
~.
~~
r~ N
Attachment O
Resolution No. 201.0-021 A N.C.S.
of the City of Petaluma,. California
CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPOR'T'
FOR THE EAST WASHINGTON PLACE PROJECT,.
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, the Notice of Preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the
East Washington Place project ("the Project") was mailed 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 TS082; and,
WHEREAS, a Draft' Environmental Impact Report ("Draft.. EIR") was prepared for the
Project in accordance with Piiblie 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; arid,
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR :relies, on the EIR for the City of Petaluma General Plan
2025, certified by City Council: Resolution 2008-058 N.C.S. on April 7, 2008, for information
and- analysis relating to certain cumulative impacts and incorporates said analysis and
conclusions to the extent applicable, as identified in the Draft EIR; and,
WHEREAS, the City 'has committed to implementing the mitigation. measures
contained in the. Implementation Plan and Mitigation, Monitoring Program adopted. by the City
as Exhibit B to Resolution 2Q08-084 N.C.S., 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,
WHEREAS, 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,
VVT-IEREAS, the Planning Commission held a noticed public meeting and hearing, on
August 25:, 2009 on the Draft EIR; and,
W~IEREAS, the City Council held a noticed public meeting and hearing on September
14, 2009 on the. Draft EIR; and,
WHEREAS,. written and oral torments 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 ("FinaI.EIR"); and,
WHEREAS, the Final EIR was considered by the Planning Commission at noticed
public meetings on November 24 and December 8, 2009, and was determined to be adequate per
the requirements of CEQA. and the City's CEQA Guidelines; and,
~I
Resolution No.2010=021 A N.C.S. Page 1
WHEREAS, at pits December 8, 2009 .meeting, the Planning ~ Commission adopted a
Resolution. recommending to the City Council certification of the Final EIR, adoption of a
lV1i igation Monitoring and Reporting Program and a Statement of Overriding. Considerations;
and,
WHEREAS, on January 4 and January 25, 2010, the City Council considered the Final
EIR at a duly noticed public: hearing; and;
WHEREAS, certain Project impacts will remain ignficant and unavoidable, even after
the application of all feasible Project mitigation measures to lessen those impacts, including (a)
AQ-l :Impact from exceeding 'the level of development. anticipat"ed 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; {.b) AQ-3.: New emissions affecting .long-term air quality, primarily
from traffic emissions; and (c) TRA=7: Unacceptable Levels of Service (LOS) at the
intersections of Lakeville Street/Caulfield Lane, and Lakeville Street/East D Street and on
segments of U_S. Highway L07, .from Petaluma Boulevard to Lakevil'~le Highway, Lakeville
Highway to East Washington. Street; and East 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, the Project does .not have the potential to have. a significant adverse impact
on wildlife resources as defined, in the State. Fish and Game Code; either individually or
cumulatively, though it is not exempt from Fish and Game filing fees; and,
WHEREAS; the Project is not located on a site listed on any .Hazardous Waste Site List
compiled by the State. pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code; and,
WHEREAS, because of .the remaining significant and unavoidable impacts of the
Project, the Planning. Commission recommends that the City Council determine pursuant to
Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) whether the benefits of the Project as proposed make
acceptable the remaining sigrificant impacts in the form of a. Statement of Overriding
Considerations, prior to any approval of the Project; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 1509'1 (d), a Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program has been. prepared and set forth in the Final EIR, .Section 6, to ensure that
all mitigation measures which serve to reduce environmental impacts of the Project are fully
implemented; and,
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council.. hereby certifies the
Final Environmental Impact Report and finds as follows:
The Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project has been. completed in
compliance with. CEQA, ,the 'State CEQA Guidelines, and "the City of Petaluma
Environmental. Review Guidelines.
2. The Final Environmental Impact Report was presented to the City Council which
reviewed aril considered it prior to making a decision on the Project.
3. The Final Environmental Impact Report reflects the City's independent judgment and
analysis on the potential, for.environmental impacts of the Project.
a~-
Resolution No. 201.0-021,A N.C.S. Page 2
4. .The custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of
proceedings for the Project is the City of Petaluma Planning Division, Petaluma City
Hall, 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952.
'l"Jnder}he powerand authority conferred upon this Council by'the Charter of•said City
REFERENCE: l hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted: bythe Ve as to
Council ofthe City of Petaluma at a Special meeting on the 8h dayroffebruary, rm
2010, by the followingvote:
City Attor ey
AYES: Vice Mayor Glass, Harris, Healy, Rabbits, Mayor Torliatt
NOES: Barrett.. Renee
ABSENT: None
,ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST:
City Clerk
0-3
Resolution No. 2010-021A N.C.S. Page 3
Attachment P
Resolution No. 2010-OZ1B N.C.S.
of the City of Petaluma, California
MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND STATEMENT
OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE
EAST WASHINGTON PLACE .PROJECT, PURSUANT TO
THE~CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, the' Notice of'Preparation of the Draft Enuronmental Impact Report for the
East Washington Place project ("the Project") was mailed 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,
WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") was prepared for the
Project in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 2T000 et seg. and CEQA. Guidelines
Section l 5000 et seq., and circulated for public review befween July lb, 2009 and September 14;
2009, with a notice inviting comments on the Draft EIR given in compliance with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15085; and,
WHEREAS; the. Draft EI'R relies on the EIR for the City of Petaluma General Plan
2025, certified by City Council Resolution.,2008-05'8 N.C:S. on. April 7, 2008, for information
and analysis relating to certain cumulative impacts and incorporates said analysis and
conclusions to the extent applicable, as identified in the Draft EIR; and,
WHEREAS, the City has committed to implementing the. mitigation measures contained
in the Implementation. Plan and. Mitigation Monitoring: Program adopted by the City as Exhibit
B to Resolution 2008-084 N.C.S., Resolution of the City Council o€ 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,
WHEREAS, the City. distributed copies of the Draft EIR. to the public agencies which
have jurisdiction by aw with respect to the Project and to other interested persons and agencies
and sought the comments of such persons and agencies; and,
WHEREAS, the P.Ianning Commission held a noticed public meeting. and hearing on
August 25, 2009 on the Draft EIR; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council. held a noticed public meeting and hearing on September
14, 2009 on the Draft EIR; and,
WHEREAS, .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,
Resolution No. 2010-021 B N.C.S. Page 1 ~ j
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held noticed public meetings on November 24
-and December 8, 2009, at which time it considered the Finial EIR and accepted public comments;
.and,
WHEREAS, at its. December 8, 200.9 meeting, the Planning Commission adopted a
Resolutionrecommending'to the City Council certification of the Final EIR; and,
WHEREAS,. on February 8, 2010, by Resolution No. 201.0-021 A N.C.S., the City
Council certified the EIR for the Project and made CEQA findings required as to that
certification; and,
WHEREAS,. Section 2-1081.(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 effectto a Less than signilcant 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,
WHEREAS, 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 Project mitigation measures to lessen those• impacts, including (a) AQ-1:
Impact from exceeding the level .of development anticipated iin the regi'orial clean air plan (2005
Ozone Strategy) which was .based on the City's previous General Plan and its less-intense
development assumptions; (b) AQ-3: New emissions affecting long-term air quality, primarily
from traffic emissions; and (c) TRA-7: Unacceptable Levels of Service (LOS) at the
intersections of Lakeville Street/Caulfield Lane, and Lakeville Street/East . D Street and on
segments of U.S. Highway 101 from Petaluma Boulevard to Lakeville Highway, Lakeville
Highway to East Washington Street, and East Washington Street to Redwood Highway in both
the near term project plus other approved projects and in the cumulative project plus General
Plxn.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 of the Project which cannot be fully- mitigated; and,
WHEREAS; a Statement of Overriding Considerations consisting of the City's findings
and determination regarding the Project's significant and unavoidable. effects is contained in
Exhibit C, which is incorporated herein by reference; and,
WHEREAS; pursuant: fo CEQA, a Mitigation Monitoring 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,
Resolution No. 2010-021 B N.C.S. Page 2
P-
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 THEREFORE, BE IT RESCILVED:
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.
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 Deterrriination pursuant to CEQA.
Under the power and authority conferred upon this Council by the CharteroEsaid City.
REFERENCE: I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted by the
Council of,the City oi'I'etaluma at a Special meeting on the 8h day of February,
2010, by the following vote:
AYES: Vice Mayor Glass, Harris, Healy, Babbitt, Mayor ~'orliatt
NOES: Barrett, Renee
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Resolution No. 2010-021B N.C:S.
as to
Page 3
~~
FXHIlF3I'T A
F'I1VDIIVGS COIVCERNI'NG SIGIVI~ICANT TIVIPAC'TS AND
1VI'I'I'IGA~'IO1V 1VIE'ASI7I2~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 fallowing findings are summarized rather then set forth in full The
text of the Drafr 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-l : 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-1: 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 C:ity'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 developmient of this scale of project. The
current regional.. Glean Air Plan would. eventually be updated to include the level of development
:occurring .under this 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.
This would be a significant and unavoidabl'c impact, It should be noted.that the project modeling
had already included a reduction of about. 11 percent due to project features. that would reduce - =-- --
vehicle trips and area. source. emissions, and proximity of existing transit. Implementation of the
mitigation measures listed in Table 2=1 of the .EIR would reduce ozone precursor and PIVI10
emissions by at least another 4 pounds per day; however, it 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 PMio so thatimpacts are less than significant are listed in Table 2-1 of
Resolution No. 20.10-021 B N.C.S. Page 4 ~i~
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 generate 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 identified 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 BAAQMD thresholds.
As a result; the air quality impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
impact AQ-4: The project; it 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, 2-1, §AQ-4, 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-1: Proposed development. could result in the direct 'loss or temporary, construction-
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 br alterations have been required in, or incorporated into; the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the, significant environmental effect as' identif ed 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 taken to mitigate the loss 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
Resolution No. 2010-OZ 1 B N.C.S. Page 5
~~
off-site replacement or through participation in .purchase of mitigation credits from an approved
mitigation bank at a minimum l :l ratio or as otherwise required by`the Corps and RWQCB.
Finding: Changes or alterations ha~e~ been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
avoid or substantially- lessen the sigriificanf environmental effect as identified in the EIR.
Impact CUL-l : Subsurface.archaeological, paleontological materialsand/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 signif cant. impact.
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 qual-fied, archeolpgist 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 bwildngs and infrastn.tcture and threaten public safety.
MitiP,afion 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 alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect. as identified in the EIR.
lmpact 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-4; The presence of relatively shallow groundwater could impact grading :and
underground constri:tefion and equipment.
Impact GEO.-S: Corrosive soils degrade metallic structures placed below grade, including but
not limited to, foundation components.
lmpact GEO-6: Expansive -soils. could cause damage to foundations "and pavements.
Mitigations GEO-2 - GEO-6: The geotechnical recommendations 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 May 28, 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.
Resolution No. 2010-021 B'N.C.S. Page 6
~" ~.
Imnact.HAZ-1: Demolition of the Carter Field Little League- facilities may result in worker
exposure to asbestos containing materials (ACNIs) and -the .release of airborne asbestos.
Mitigation HAZ-1: Prior to demolition of the Carter Field,. the applicant shall coordinate with
the Bay Area Air Quality Management 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 will 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 Number to 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 thesignificant environmental effect as identified in the EIR.
Impact HAZ-2: During the project. 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 an exposed construction materials.
Mitigation HAZ-2: The Petafiurna Fire Department and Geneeal 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 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-1: Development of the project site could degrade water quality during
construction and post-constructon..due to the intensification of urban land uses and increased
imperviousness. Because, a Stotrn 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 impacts on surface•and groundwater quality.
Mitigation.HYDRO-l: 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.
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 Petaluma 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
Resolution No. 2010-0218 N.GS. Page 7
. P~1
revegetaton 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 apprgved 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.
Mitigation NOI-1: Project developers shall require by contract specifications that the
construction BiVIPs be implemented by contractors to reduce construction noise levels as listed in
Table 2-l, §NOI-l, ofthe 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-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 ffo,ur -Base Case + Project Conditions
® East Washington. Street/ Southbound l01 Ramps
° Westbound East Washington Street approach left turn lane
`Weekday AM,and Saturday Peak Hours - 202 + Project Conditions
® East Washington. S reef/ Southbound 10..1 Ramps
° Westbound East Washington Street approach left turn lanes
Miti ation TRA-1::Implement the improvements to the East V/asington Street/Southbound 101
Ramps intersection as listed.in Table 2-l, §TRA-la, 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
Resolution No. 2010-02.16 N_C.S. Page 8 ~ (/
components require separation; or suff dent 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 significant .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-
l, §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.
Impact TRA-3: Johnson Drive/Fairgrounds/City .Swim Center-Skate Park Driveway Access
Intersection. This intersection would be located. on the inside of a 90-degree curve of Johnson
Drive. It would provide a reconfigured access to the Fairgrounds; City swim center, and skate
park. This .four-leg intersection is proposed to accommodate all-turns; and crosswalks would be
provided on the northbound Johnson Drive and Swim Center approaches to the intersection. The
intersection configuration (90-degree curve) raises sight line concerns: swim .center-skate park -
outbound vehicles turning onto Johnson Drive would have diffi"culty seeing and being seen by
Johnson Drive through traffic. These safety concerns would be significant :impacts. (Thresholds
# 17, # 19, #20)
Mitigation TRA-3: Provide stop. control on all approaches. to this .intersec ion; with the exception
of eastbound Johnson Drive through traffic (i.e. stop sign control`. the swim center "outbound
approach,, the Johnson Drive westbound approach, the .,Fairgrounds .northbound approach and the
Johnson Drive eastbound left: turn are at this intersection). This would allow. all vehicles on the
intersection approaches to,see and be seen, and would note back up inbound through traff c 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 identifed in the EIR.
Impact. TRA-4: Pedestrian Circulation. 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 straight 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 accessing-the.swim center or
skate park 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 clear path to follow to access the, swim. center or skate park
(proposed fencing and lack 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
Finding: Changes or alterations. have been required in; or incorporated into, the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identifed 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,
Resolution No. 2010-021 B N.C.S. Page 9
i
~.
.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 traffic control plan and 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 effect 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 ~pedestri.an accessway shall be
maintained and kept. separafe from construction vehicle activity, accomplished with ..fencing and
signage directing bicyclisfs and pedestrians through the site.
)Finding: Changes or alterations have been. required in, or .incorporated .into, the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the signif cant 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 buildout of all other approved
projects and in the long-term' with the project. plus buildout of the ]and uses envisioned in the
Petaluma General Plan. There would be significant impacts at the following two study
intersections:
Lakeville Street / Caulfield Lane
Lakeville Street / East D Street
There would also be significant impacts on the following segments of U.S. Highway 10 ]
a .Petaluma Blvd. to Lakeville Hwy
• Lakeville Hwy to East W. ashi:ngton St.
® East Washington St. to Redwood Hwy
Finding: This impact cannot be feasibly mitigated and it will remain at alevel of significantand
unavoidable. However, this inipaet 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/Gaulfield Land. and Lakeville
Street/East 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 5-P-10', Program A of the General Plan, which. notes that a level of
service lower than, L'O.S D for motor vehicles may be deemed acceptable by the City in instances
where potential vehi.cu'lar 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 character;. 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 lanes or expanding vehicle capacity at the locations would conflict with
Resolution No. 2010-021 B N:C.S. Page 10 ~/I~
these Guiding Principles. Thee U.S. Highway l0] freeway segments were analyzed iri 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 aless-than-significant level
can be achieved since this roadway is under state and federal jurisdiction.
Resolution No. 2010-021 B N;C:S. Page l 1 ~ L
EXHIBIT B
EINDIN~S ~tEGARI)I1~1G AI:TERNATIVES
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).
NO PROJECT ALTEItNATI'VE
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.
Finding -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 ALTERNATIVE
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 .15,0;0.0 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 impact's to the Lakeville Street/Caulfield :Lane and Lakeville Street/East D
Street intersections .at the PM peak hour to less than significant kevel , 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 esgen brit not avoid .Impact AQ-
7, .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 BAAIvIQD threshold,
thereby reducing :ImpactAQ-3 fo less than signif cant, in comparison to the Project; for which
Impact AQ-3 remains significant and unavoidable.. Because the site would.stih be developed; this
alternative would.have similar impacts related to construction or .development activities such as
hydrology or geology, and potential impacts fo 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. The
Mitigated Alternative would provide 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,
Resolution No. 201'0-021B N:C.S. Page l2
. P-~~~''
compared to the proposed Project. Fewer local jobs would be created. The Mitigated Alternative
would generate proportionally ess 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 vocal retail opportunities, reducing excess traffic on Highway l O1 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 USI±J 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 BIR; this alternative includes. a residential component in the south and
east ofthe site. Residential development would consist of 225 housing units on 9 acres.
Finding - Infeasilile: This_ alterriafive 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 cjtzality, noise, and utilities.
The incorporation of the residential component would increase vehicle traffic trips in the AM
and PIvI 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 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.
Resolution No. 2010-021 B N.C.S. Page 13 I~
U
EXI~~BIT C
STATEIVIEN~' OF OV~ItIaI-~ING C®NSIDEIZA'I'IONS
I. Leal Basis and.. Background
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 ahe General Plan EIR as
significant and unavoidable: (Reso,lution 2008-084 N,C.S., May $, 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 v: California Resources Agency, 103
Cal.App. 4`h 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 environmental effects identi-feed 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
identified adverse or potentially :adverse .impacts for the Project :have not been mifi~gated to
acceptable levels, there are sped c economic, social, environmental, land use, and other
considerations that support approval of the Project.
Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
The following unavoidable significant environmental .cumulative impacts identified in the
General Plan EIR apply to the Project:
0 Impact AQ-1: 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.
® .Impact AQ-3: The project would generate new emissions that would affect long-term air
quality. A majority ofthe emissions generated by full build out. of the project would be
produced by traffic.
' ® Impact TRA-7: Increased motor vehicle traffic would result in unacceptable. level of
service (LOS)' at study intersections. Build out of the land uses envisioned in the
Petaluma General PIari would result in significant impacts at the following two study
intersections:
^ Lakeville Street / Caulfield Lane
^ Lakeville Street / East D Street
Resolution No. 2010-021 B N.C.S. Page 14 ~ 1~
There would' also be significant impacts at the following segments of U.S. Highway 101:
^ Petaluma Boulevard to Lakeville Highway
^ Lakeville Highway o East W. ,ashington Street
^ East Washington'Street to Redwood Highway
All applicable project-level General Plan policies, programs and. implementation measures which
were adopted to reduce. the, significant and unavoidable cumulative effects relevant to the Project
will be complied with, either 6y 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. unavoidable 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 vill contribute to the City's economy b~providing both
permanent iobs and a mixture of both full-time and part-"time permanent io
General Plan Policy 9-P-10 encourages economic development that will enhance job
opportunities for 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. The Project will provide
approximately 3'.88 temporary construction jobs, assuming a; one year buildout period. 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; thi 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 full-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 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/gr =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 ofpublication and/or outreach to staff.
Resolution No. 20 ] 0-02 { B N.C.S. Page 15
}~, l5
3. The Project will utilize local point of sale for Project construction and related. materials.
The Project applicant and/or ifs 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 provi"ding 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. im~aot fees that will fund City services and facilities.
The project will generate approximately $10,487:,097 in development impact fees to the
City. These fees will offset. the P.rojeef'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 generally are 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 sigriif 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 Communit~Development
Commission (PCDC) activities for the benefit of economic development and affordable
housingpro rg ams.
The Project is located within the PCD Project Area and will:generate tax increment funds
to the PCDC. No redevelopment funds have been committed to the Project.
b. 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 coneems with economic, social,
environmental, and 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. Appendix D to
the Draft EIR is a Retail Market Impact Analysis prepared by Bay Area Economics, an
economic consultant to the City. It analyzes retail market conditions and market factors in
the: City .and leakage. of sales to other communities 'in market sectors relevant to the
project, in the context of evaluating the potential for urban blight and resulting ,physical
decay.
It estimates that the. Project is anticipated to generate approximately $119.2 million in
sales per year, almost all of which is estimated to be taxable: Sales tax revenue accrues to
the City's General Fund. In addition, the City is anticipated to receive additional
projected property tax revenue and aone-time sum from.. property transfer tax. Other
prospective income includes annual property tax.. in-lieu of Vehicle-License-Fees (VLF)
and fees from licenses and related project-generated revenue. 'A significant net fiscal
benefit is expected to the General Fund.
Resolution No. 20,10-021 B N.C:S. Page 16
~, I.
7. The Project would significantly address the long-term negative economic impact of retail.
leakage.
Appendix D to the Draft .EIR. is a Retail Market Impact Analysis prepared by Bay Area
Economics; :an economic consultant to the Gity. It analyzes retail. market conditions and
market factors in the City and leakage of sales to other communities in market sectors
relevant to the project, in the context of evaluating the .potential for urban blight and
resulting physical decay. Appendix D to the Draft EIR 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, 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, with the .largest portion of this in the General Merchandise store
category., Given the, lack of competition in the electronics/appl'ances sector in Petaluma,
capture is in that segment would be larger. Capture of annual leakage in the Food Store
category, however, would be limited. The Project anchor tenant is described in the Draft
EIR project.description as not including a full-scale grocery. A smaller specialty food
store was included in the: analysis in Appendix D to the Draft EIR. No capture is
estimated for the home improvement or building supply sectors.
While the Project could have capture potential for retail. uses within the existing Trade
Area, these are projected to be much smaller than the net revenue potential and leakage
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 retail leakage issue that presents both .current .and Tong-term economic
detriment to the CityofPetalurna.
8. The Project will provide upgrades and new amenities to the Swim Center and Skate Park.
General Plari Policy 6-P-1..3 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 traff c 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 nevv sgnage; 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 with enhanced pedestrian and bicycle connectors to be constructed as part of
the Project's improvements.
Resolution No. 2010-021 B N.C.S. Page 17
il~
9. The Projecthas allowed for the relocation of 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 unproved 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 o'1d Kenilworth site.
l0. The Project will relocate the Carter Little League Fields on a timetable that will not
,disrupt the little. league season.
The Project Applicant and the Petaluma National Little. League. have agreed to a
timetable for the relocation of the. Carter 'Little League Fields from the Project szte to a
new location at the Retalurna 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.
III. Conclusion
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 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 o Public Resources. Code .Section 21081 and CEQA
Guidelines Section 1.5093, the City Council finds that the specific economic, legal, social;
technological or other benef is that 'the Project will produce, as described herein, outweigh the
remaining significant: and unavoidable adverse environmental impacts of the Project and render
those impacts acceptable..
Resolution No. 20 t0-021 B N.C.S. ~ Page 18 , t('~
``{