Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Resolution 2016-06 06/14/2016RESOLUTION NO. 2016-06 CITY OF PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING AN ADDENDUM TO THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FOR THE CADER CORPORATE CENTER PROJECT LOCATED AT 1480 CADER LANE APN: 005-040-057 FILE NO: PLSR-15-0005 WHEREAS, Danny Garon ("Applicant") submitted an application for Site Plan and Architectural Review for the development of three (3) tilt up warehouse buildings, totaling 267,840 square feet in floor area, to house light industrial and distribution uses and located at 1480 Cader Lane (APN 005-040-057) ("Project"); and WHEREAS, on September 8, 2015, the Planning Commission approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project via Resolution No. 2015-14; and WHEREAS, on April 21, 2016, the Applicant submitted an application to amend the approved Project ("Revised Project"); specifically, Condition No. 21 related to aspects of the approved Mitigated Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, an analysis was prepared in conformance with California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines § 15164 to determine whether and to what extent the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration remains sufficient to address the potential impacts of the Revised Project or whether additional documentation is required by CEQA Guidelines § 15162; and WHEREAS, the conclusion of the analysis is that substantial evidence supports the conclusion that an Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted by Resolution No. 2015-14 is the appropriate environmental review document; and WHEREAS, all previously adopted mitigation measures in the Mitigated Negative Declaration do apply and will continue to apply to the Revised Project; and WHEREAS, prior to adopting Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Planning Commission conducted a duly -noticed public hearing on June 14, 2016 at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Revised Project, the Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the staff report dated June 14, 2016 analyzing the Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Revised Project, and received and considered all written and oral public comments on environmental effects of the Revised Project which were submitted up to and at the time of the public hearings; and, WHEREAS, the Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration applies the BAAQMD's Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-06 Page 1 California Environmental Quality Act - Air Quality Guidelines, May 2012, including the BAAQMD thresholds of significance adopted in June 2010. As lead agency under CEQA, the City of Petaluma has the discretion to rely upon the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines and thresholds of significance since they include the best available scientific data and most conservative thresholds available for comparison of the Revised Project's emissions. Comparison of the Revised Project's emissions against these thresholds provides a conservative assessment as the basis for a determination of significance; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to further analysis in the Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, including evaluation using the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines and thresholds of significance, the Project does not make a considerable contribution to a significant cumulative air quality or greenhouse gas emissions impact found to be significant and unavoidable in the General Plan 2025 EIR, because of the Revised Project's emissions are below significance thresholds identified; and, WHEREAS, the Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis of the potential for environmental impacts from the Revised Project; and, WHEREAS, the Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration demonstrates that: (a) there are no substantial changes proposed by the Revised Project or in the circumstances in which the project will be undertaken that require major revisions of the MND; (b) the proposed revisions do not require preparation of a new subsequent or supplemental EIR or MND, either due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and (c) the Revised Project is consistent with the previous MND and would involve only minor changes; and WHEREAS, the Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, approved Mitigated Negative Declaration and related project and environmental documents, including the General Plan 2025 EIR and all documents incorporated herein by reference, are available for review in the City Community Development Department at Petaluma City Hall, during normal business hours. The custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings for the proposed project is the City of Petaluma Community Development Department, 1 1 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952; and WHEREAS, on the basis of the whole record before it, including the Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and comments received thereon, the Planning Commission finds that there will be no significant environmental effects resulting from the Revised Project, provided that mitigation measures identified in the approved Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum are incorporated into the project; and WHEREAS, the foregoing recitals are true, correct, reflect the independent judgment of the City of Petaluma and are incorporated herein by reference. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA AS FOLLOWS: A. Based on the above findings, the Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum, included herein as Exhibit A, is hereby approved. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-06 Page 2 B. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program approved under Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015-14 remains in full force and effect without any changes to the mitigation measures included therein. ADOPTED this 14th day of June, 2016, by the following vote: Commission Member Aye No Absent Abstain Councilmember Barrett X Vice Chair Benedetti-Petnic X Gomez X Chair Lin X Marzo X Pierre X Wolpert IX ATTEST: P' fi ftnt d Joceyn Lin, CZ/hair s6 laQ AMI LOX0 ` JCA 9 1 i � iV0 f""Ihe'r Hines, Co ' ` ission Secretary Eric W. Danly, City Attorney Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-06 Page 3 REVISED ADDENDUM TO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CADER CORPORATE CENTER Prepared By: City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 a Exhibit A Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-06 Page 4 June 14, 2016 1.0 Introduction This document serves as an addendum to the Cader Corporate Center Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), adopted September 8, 2015, via Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015-14. The approved project included the construction of three (3) concrete tilt -up buildings approximately 267,840 square feet in floor area and associated vehicle parking and truck loading areas. At the time of approval, specific uses of the buildings were not known. In order to evaluate the project under CEQA, permitted uses of light manufacturing/processing and wholesaling and distribution were assumed. In approving the project, a condition of approval was imposed to address the speculative nature of the development and ensure that, once specific tenants/uses were identified for the development, they were be properly reviewed for consistency with the IS/MND's assumptions and corresponding impact analysis. Condition No. 21 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015-15 states, "The potential environmental effects of the project were studied and based upon a project description utilized in an Initial Study prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Certain elements of the project description are necessary to prevent one or more significant effects. Therefore, to ensure this approval results in project consistent with the description relied upon in the Initial Study, Prior to building permit issuance, the following applicant proposed conditions shall be shown on plans submitted for construction purposes and the Project shall include: a) No more than 23,692 square feet or 8.8% of the total building square footage for the site shall be air conditioned. b) No commercial refrigeration rooms and/or equipment. C) At least 16,200 square feet of solar arrays shall be maintained in good working condition and are to remain in operation throughout the life of the project. Areas where solar is not to be installed shall be pre -wired to allow for future installation of solar panels." The specific requirements of Condition No. 21 were imposed to address land use aspects and/or project features that the IS/MND indicated would have the potential to result in more severe impacts under the topics of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Transportation. The project proponent has now identified building -specific tenants and presented construction plans to the City of Petaluma that require an amendment to Condition No. 21 cited above, as described below. 1.1 Purpose of the Addendum to the IS/MND CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 establishes criteria to assess which level of environmental review is appropriate when a project analyzed in a previously approved IS/MND or EIR has changed, or the environmental setting within which the review was carried out has changed. It is up to the Lead Agency to determine whether an addendum, supplemental, or subsequent environmental document is appropriate. The lead or responsible agency may choose to prepare an Addendum rather than a supplemental or subsequent MND if the following situations are present: 1. No new significant impacts will result from the project or from new mitigation measures. 2. No substantial increase in the severity of environmental impact will occur. 3. No new feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that would reduce impacts previously found not to be feasible have, in fact, been found to be feasible. Accordingly, it was determined, based on the revised project and accompanying technical study, that changes to the approved project will not result in potentially significant impacts not previously identified nor would they substantially increase the severity of any previously identified impacts. Further, there have been no changes to the project setting and there are no previously infeasible alternatives that are now considered feasible. Last, none of the factors set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a) (3) were found to exist. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-06 Page 5 It was also determined that only minor additions or changes are necessary to make the previous environmental document adequately apply to the revised project. As such, the City of Petaluma has determined that an Addendum to the MND is the appropriate level of review and will sufficiently address any revisions or changes to the project and/or that of the environmental setting. 2.0 Changes to Approved Project The revised project includes the following features for the entire site: • Combined building floor area of 259,354 square feet - this is a reduction of 8,486 square feet; • 37,967 square feet dedicated to air conditioned office uses - this is an increase of 14,275 square feet; • 158,862 square feet dedicated to non -refrigerated warehouse space - this is a reduction of 85,286 square feet; • 63,500 square feet dedicated to refrigerated warehouse space - this is an increase of 63,500 square feet; • 180 employees - this is a reduction of 12 employees; and • Installation of 40,000 square feet of solar power panels - this is an increase of 23,800 square feet. Other than changes to the use of each approved building, assumed employee numbers, and increase in solar power panel area, all other aspects (e.g., site plan, building elevations, landscaping) of the project remain as - approved. 3.0 Environmental Analysis Consistent with the requirements of CEQA, this Addendum addresses only those impact categories that warrant an update to address the minor project modifications made since adoption of the IS/MND. For this analysis, that category is limited to: Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Table 1 below shows the level to which each impact category has changed if at all. Table 1 —Impact Changes from Approved +Initial 'Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-06 Page 6 New More Severe No substantial Significant impact change No change Impact Aesthetics �I Agricultural Air Quality Biological Resources �I Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Greenhouse Gases 1 Hazardous Materials Hydrology Land Use / Planning�I Mineral Resources �I Noise Population / Housing �I Public Services Recreation �l Transportation �I Utilities Mandatory Findings �l Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-06 Page 6 3.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Original Analysis Project Screening Level Above Screening Level? General Light Industry 267, 840 sq. ft. Less Than Yes Warehouse Potentially Significant Less than Yes Would the project: Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either ❑ ❑ ® ❑ directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing ❑ ❑ ❑ the emissions of greenhouse gases? Sources: BAAQMD 2010 Clean Air Plan and BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines 2010 and 2012; Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, July 24, 2015. (a) (Significant GHG Emissions) Less than Significant: Construction Emission: Construction of the proposed project will result in GHG emissions from heavy-duty construction equipment, worker trips, and material delivery and hauling. Construction GHG emissions are short-term and will cease once construction is complete. The BAAQMD has not established thresholds of significance for GHG emissions resulting from construction activities. Rather, BAAQMD encourages the incorporation of best management practices to reduce GHG emissions during construction. As stated under the Air Quality discussion, above, best management practices will be imposed on the project as a uniformly applied condition of approval. Further, while no significance threshold exits for construction -related GHG emissions, the project's annual construction emissions (466 MT of CO2e) will be below the lowest project emission threshold considered by BAAQMD (1,100 metric tons MT CO2e/yr). Accordingly, GHG emissions generated from construction of the proposed project will not directly or indirectly result in significant impacts to the environment and any potential impacts from construction generated GHGs will be less than significant. Operational Emission: Before conducting a detailed estimation of whether a project's operational emissions would have a potential for exceeding the GHG emission thresholds, the BAAQMD recommend applying screening criteria based on development type. The screening criteria were derived using default assumptions as well as modeling for indirect emissions (e.g., electric generation, solid waste, and water use). Projects below the screening criteria are considered to emit GHG emissions below the threshold of significance. Table 2 below identifies the BAAQMD GHG screening level results for the project based on both the "general light industrial" and "warehouse" land use categories at Table 3-1 of the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. Because the project exceeds the BAAQMD's screening levels for GHG emissions, a project -specific estimation of emissions was prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin. Table 2 —BAAQMD Greenhouse Gas Screening Results Land Use Type Project Screening Level Above Screening Level? General Light Industry 267, 840 sq. ft. 121,000 sq. ft. Yes Warehouse 267,840 sq. ft. 84,000 sq. ft. Yes Source: Table 3-1, pg. 3-2 of Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2010 CEQA Guidelines, May 2010. The project's GHG emissions were estimated separately for the sources of operational emissions: (1) emissions associated with energy use and area sources, including electricity and natural gas, and area sources such as hearths and landscaping equipment; (2) emissions from vehicle use; (3) emissions associated with obtaining and consuming potable water; and (4) emissions associated with solid waste generation. Table 3 below presents the results of the CalEEMod model analysis in terms of annual metric tons of equivalent CO2 emissions (MT of CO2e/yr). These emissions are based on the Operational output of CalEEMod for the project inclusive of its energy conservation features including solar arrays, high efficiency fixtures, and other green building measures proposed Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-06 Page 7 by the project. While waste diversion methods will be instituted by the project no deductions were taken for the purpose of the GHG emissions analysis. As shown in Table 3 below, operation of the project would generate 847 metric tons of CO2e per year and per capita emissions of 4.3 MT of CO2e/yr/capita. These do not exceed the aforementioned significance thresholds and, therefore, it can be concluded the project would result in a less than significant impact related to GHG emissions. Mitigation Measures: None required. No new or substantially more severe significant impacts would occur and no additional or modified mitigation measures are required. Table 3 — Annual Project GHG Emissions in Metric Tons (Approved Project) Source Category 2017 CO2e Emissions Area <1 Energy Consumption 200 Mobile 431 Solid Waste Generation 115 Water Usage 100 Project Total 847 Per Capita Emissions 4.3 MT CO2e/year/capita BAAQMD Thresholds 1,100 MT CO2e/year or 4.6 MT CO2e/year/capita Source: Table 3-1, pg. 3-2 of Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2010 CEQA Guidelines, May 2010. (b) (GHG Plan Conflict) No Impact: The City of Petaluma has adopted GHG emission reduction policies and programs as part of the General Plan 2025. These policies and programs address energy efficiency, transportation, conservation and provide for educational programs. The City has also adopted the California Green Building Code Standards thereby mandating that all new development show consistency with both the mandatory measures outlined therein and Tier 1 voluntary measures. In addition to meeting the mandatory provisions of CalGreen Tier 1, the applicant is proposing to install two double head electric vehicle charging stations per building which would accommodate a total of 12 electric vehicles (4 per building). Further, the project proposes to install and maintain 16,200 square feet of operational solar panels expected to generate approximately 333,486 kilowatts of power annually and install bicycle parking. The project will also recycle at least 20 percent of waste generated and reduce water consumption through use of drought tolerant landscaping and efficient indoor fixtures. All of the aforementioned measures proposed by the project applicant will serve to offset GHG emissions and aid in the effort of reducing emissions. No element of the proposed project is expected to conflict or otherwise inhibit an adopted plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Therefore, no impacts related to a conflict with an applicable plan or policy is expected. Mitigation Measures: None required Planning Commission Resolution No, 2016-06 Page 8 Addendum Analysis Less Than Potentially Significant Less than Would the project: Significant with Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either ❑ ❑ ® ❑ directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing ❑ ❑ ❑ the emissions of greenhouse gases? Sources: BAAQMD 2010 Clean Air Plan and BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines 2010 and 2012; Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, July 24, 2015; Cader Corporate Center - Update to GHG Emissions - April 2016, prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., dated April 21, 2016. (a) (Significant GHG Emissions) Less than Significant: Construction Emission: The revised project includes no changes to proposed construction activities. Therefore, the prior analysis remains applicable to the revised project and no change to the prior impact analysis would result or is necessary. Operational Emissions: The revised project features described above at Section 2.0 include land use and increased renewable energy usage changes that effect the operational aspect of the greenhouse gas emission analysis. To address these changes, a new CaIEEMod model was run to estimate the revised project's operational -related greenhouse gas emissions. The results of this are provided at Table 4 below. As shown in Table 4 below, operation of the revised project would generate 889 metric tons of CO2e per year and per capita emissions of 3� 4_9 MT of CO2e/yr/capita. Under the applied BAAQMD significant threshold, both annual emission amounts (i.e., MT and per capita) must be exceeded for there to be a sianificant environmental effect. These Therefore, since results for both emissions do not exceed the aforementioned significance thresholds -Grad, therefere, it can be concluded the revised project would, like the approved project, result in a less than significant impact related to GHG emissions. Table 4 - Annual Project GHG Emissions in Metric Tons (Revised Project) Source Category 2017 CO2e Emissions Area <1 Energy Consumption 241 Mobile 462 Solid Waste Generation 89 Water Usage 97 Project Total 889 Per Capita Emissions 3:7 4_9 MT CO2e/year/capita BAAQMD Thresholds 1,100 MT CO2e/year or 4.6 MT CO2e/year/capita Source: Table 3-1, pg. 3-2 of Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2010 CEQA Guidelines, May 2010; Cader Corporate Center - Update to GHG Emissions - April 2016, prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., dated April 21, 2016, Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-06 Page 9 (b) (GHG Plan Conflict) No Impact: The revised project would have no effect on the prior IS/MND analysis related to a Greenhouse Gas Plan conflict. In addition to mandatory compliance with CALGreen building code requirements, all of the original measures proposed by the project applicant would remain and continue offset GHG emissions and aid in the effort of reducing emissions. No element of the revised project is expected to conflict or otherwise inhibit an adopted plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Therefore, the revised project would result in no impact related to a conflict with an applicable plan or policy for purposes of greenhouse gas emission reductions. 3.3 Findings of the Addendum The previous Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) adopted for the Cader Corporate Center project remains adequate for the revised project; therefore, the City of Petaluma prepared an Addendum as provided by CEQA Guidelines §15164, The Addendum addresses whether and to what extent the previous MND remains sufficient to address the potential impacts of the revised project or whether additional documentation is required by CEQA Guidelines § 15162. The analysis above demonstrates that: (a) some revisions to the previously adopted MND are needed but there are no substantial changes proposed by the revised project or in the circumstances in which the project will be undertaken that require major revisions of the MND; (b) the proposed revisions do not require preparation of a new subsequent or supplemental EIR or MND, either due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and (c) the revised project would involve only minor changes to the previous MND. Finally, all previously adopted mitigation measures continue to apply to the revised project. 3.4 References The following new technical report was prepared to address the revised project: "Cader Corporate Center - Update to GHG Emissions - April 2016," prepared by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., dated April 21, 2016. A copy of that report is available for review during normal business hours at the City of Petaluma, 11 English Street, in the Community Development Department. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2016-06 Page 10