HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1.A 04/25/2011_ a
tl ;
r , /y � ✓9YV rl •! i
DATE: April 25, 2011
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council through City Manager
FROM: Geoff Bradley, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Public Hearing to Receive Public Comment; Discussion of the Draft
Environmental Impact Report, and Possible Action to Direct Preparation of Final
Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Deer Creek Village Project,
located at North McDowell Boulevard and Rainier Avenue; APNs 007- 380 -005
and 007 -380 -027
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council take the following action:
a Receive public comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report ( "DEIR ") for the
proposed Deer Creek Village Project;
m Provide Council comment identifying any changes or additional information to be
incorporated into the Final EIR; and if appropriate
U Authorize preparation of a Final' EIR.
BACKGROUND
In 2009 the applicant, Merlone Geier, submitted an application for Site Plan and Architectural
Review for development of an approximately 344,000 square foot commercial shopping center,
including a mixture of commercial, office, and recreation uses. The proposed project has been
found to be consistent with the MU1B zoning district, as such; no additional land use
entitlements would be required.
The DE g g gr certified by
IR for Deere Creek Village is a second tier EIR, tiering from the! Program! EIR
the City,of Petaluma in April, 2008 for General Plan 2025. The Deer Creek Village Initial Study
considered all project-specific impacts and identified two as potentially significant
enviromnental effects which could not be fully mitigated: Air Quality /Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, and Transportation/Traffic. Significant noise impacts were carried forward from the
General Plan EIR and are based on the citywide effects of cumulative buildout envisioned in the
General Plan, combined with future rail operations.. The DEIR analyzes the project - specific
significant impacts which were not fully examined in the General Plan EIR.
Agenda Review:
City Attorney Of
Finance Director
The DEIR was released for public comment on March 3, 2011 for a period of 45 days in
accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15200 et seq. This public comment period was
coordinated with all applicable trustee and responsible agencies through the State Clearinghouse
and included a public hearing by the Planning Commission on March 22, 2011.
The Council action recommended for tonight's meeting is to evaluate the DEIR and determine
whether it is sufficient for the Council to authorize proceeding to an FEIR. All Council direction
and comments, as well as CEQA- related comments received during the public comment period
and Council hearing would be responded to in the FEIR. The FEIR would then be prepared and
reviewed at additional public hearings before the Planning Commission and the Council.
DISCUSSI ®N
Project Description
The applicant has submitted an application for Site Plan and Architectural Review for
development of a commercial center to include approximately 344,000 square feet of
commercial land uses and associated parking and circulation on the existing 36.55 acres of
undeveloped property. The project is consistent with the existing MU1B mixed use zoning and
General Plan 2025 land uses for the site and does not propose a subdivision map. The
development mix would include four major anchor retail stores, five smaller shops, along with
restaurant, pharmacy, and grocery uses for a total of about 282,000 square feet of retail uses.
The development would also include a 44,450 square foot fitness facility and 17,500 square feet
of services, including a bank and medical and professional offices.
Format of Draft EIR
The analysis of the DEIR is broken into three primary sections; including Environmental Impact
Analysis, General Impact Categories, and Alternatives to the Proposed Project. The analysis for
Air Quality /Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Transportation/Traffic, as well as the discussion of
Urban Decay, includes an overview of the existing conditions compared to existing plus project
conditions and applies thresholds of significance based on the CEQA Guidelines and other
regulatory criteria to assess whether or not the project will have an impact and, if so, the
significance of that impact.
The DEIR discusses levels of significance and feasible mitigation measures to ensure that all
impacts are reduced to a less - than - significant level if possible. For those impacts than cannot be
reduced to a less- than - significant level,'a determination of significantand unavoidable is made.
Discussion of cumulative impacts occurs in each of the analysis sections, while discussion of
alternatives is broken into its own section (DEIR Section VI).
Impacts that are Significant and Unavoidable
The DEIR identified potentially significant impacts on the environment in three areas that cannot
be mitigated to a less- than - significant level. These impacts would cause significant and
unavoidable impacts under Noise, Air Quality /Greenhouse Gas Emissions and
Transportation/Traffic. (See Table II -1 Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts and
Mitigation Measures starting on page II -3 of the document for a complete list of all impacts and
proposed mitigation measures.)
2
Noise
Impact Noise -3: The evaluation of the project's contribution to cumulative effects relies on the
evaluation of noise effects in the EIR for General Plan 2025, which determined that at General
Plan build out, significant and unavoidable impacts citywide would result from traffic- related
noise and future rail service. In adopting the General Plan, the City accepted these significant
and unavoidable impacts by approving a statement of overriding considerations.
No feasible mitigation measures were identified that would reduce the proposed project's
contribution to this cumulative city -wide impact to less than considerable, and thus this General
Plan significant and unavoidable impact remains applicable to the proposed project.
Air Quality
Impact AQ -l: Construction related activities associated with the project would result in dust and
equipment exhaust emissions that could at times, affect adjacent residential uses including the
single - family residential homes to the northeast /east of McDowell Boulevard and /or the
Petaluma Valley Hospital to the east on Professional Drive, and could contribute to deterioration
of local air quality. During grading, the first year of construction, average daily emissions would
exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District: (BAAQMD) thresholds.
The City's General Plan 2025 includes a chapter containing air quality policies and programs
that seek to maintain or improve Petaluma's air quality. After General Plan approval and
certification of the General Plan EIR, which found certain cumulative air quality and GHG
impacts to be significant and unavoidable, BAAQMD adopted new CEQA Guidelines
establishing thresholds of significance and providing, a methodology for updating the General
Plan air quality and greenhouse gas analysis for this project.
Although mitigation is included to reduce air pollutant emissions from grading and construction
impact, NO, emissions during grading would remain above the BAAQMD threshold and
therefore the impact remains significant and unavoidable.
Impact AQ -4: The project would cause an increase in GHG emissions of 8,707 metric tons of
CO2 annually, which exceeds the 2010 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines "bright line" threshold of
1,100 metric tons per year. Because emissions exceed the, bright line threshold, the significance
of the impact is evaluated by assessing .the GHG emission efficiency. The proposed project
would generate 13.5 metric tons per year of CO per capita, which exceeds the BAAQMD
significance threshold of 4.6 metric tons per capita. These anticipated operational emissions for
the project were calculated using a computer model (URBEMIS2007) to provide COT emissions
in metric tons per year. The calculation included emissions from transportation, area sources,
electricity consumption, natural gas consumption, electricity usage associated with water usage
and wastewater discharge, and solid waste land filling and transport.
Mitigation Measure AQ -4 outlines measures to reduce air pollutant emissions both from vehicle
trips and area sources. Although implementation of the measures would reduce per capita CO2
emissions to 13.0 metric tons per year, it remains above the BAAQMD per capita significance
3
A . .�
I ,
threshold -of 4.6 and therefore the impact remains significant and unavoidable.
Greenhouse s emissions use ga ions are by nature cumulative impacts. Thee :resulting impact determined
by this' DEM.� is the' same level of significance, as determined in the General Plan EIR for
greenhouse gas emissions, but resulted from using the more specific BAAQMD 2010 CEQA
Guidelines methodology.
Transportation /Traffic
Traffic'c:onditions' were measured for six scenarios: existing conditions (baseline); existing
conditions plus project; existing conditions plus "pipeline" projects (those projects approved and
not eet
i el � ro complete or ect; with ,a pp lications inst e development process); existing" conditions plus
t; m
pip pl` p j cumulative conditio d cumulative conditions plus project, which is the
Genei 4.1plan 2025 'build, . Ohit' scenario. Some baseline plus project or Baseline, plus project plus
pipeline Opacts would be :modified. at General Plan build out•'because of traffic improvements
anticipated acid relied, on in the General Plan EIR.
Impact 1raffic-2b: Intersection operations at East Washington Street and North McDowell
Boulevard were found to exceed the threshold of significance under existing plus project
conditions. No feasible mitigation, was,identif ed to reduce .the impact to less - than- significant.
Impact Traffic -3b Vehicle queuing at the intersection of East Washington Street and North
McDowell Boulevard in the. southbound right -turn lane was .found to exceed. the thresholds of
significance under existing plus .project conditions. Although construction of additional lane
storage ,.length would reduce the project's contribution to significant impacts, there is not
available rigliv of- -way under the built out scenario 'along- North .McDowell Boulevard.
Therefore, no feasible mitigation was identified arid the impact to. this intersection remains
significant and, unavoidable.
A l number of traffic impacts under, th g
' e existing plus pipeline; ;plus . project conditions were
identified as significant a n d unavoidable with ,rio 'feasible °mitigation identified to reduce the
impacts' less- than - significant. The following, five impacts 'are identified as significant and
unavoidable;
Impact 'Traf -Sa: Intersection operations at Corona Road and North McDowell Boulevard
under`° existing!I'plus pipeline plus project conditions result in a significant and unavoidable'
impact.,
Impact Traffic -'5b': Intersection operations at'Corona Road andPetaluma Boulevard North.under
existing,plus pipeline °plus project conditions exceed thresholds of significance.
Impact Traffic75d , Intersection operations',at East Washington and North McDowell Boulevard
exceed thresholds of significance under'existiiig plus pipeline plus project conditions.
Impact Traffic -6':' Vehicle' queuing at the'. East Washington Street and North McDowell
Boulevard southbound right -turn lane would exceed storage capacity under existing plus pipeline
plus project conditions.
4
Impact Traffic -7: The proposed project is expected to increase traffic volumes on Highway 101
segments (Pepper Road `to Old Redwood Highway and from East Washington 'Street to .Lakeville
Highway) that are expected to operate at LOS F without the project by more than one percent of
li p
the segment's theoretical capacity.
Five additional traffic impacts were identified under cumulative plus project conditions.
Feasible mitigation was not identified and all five impacts are considered significant and
unavoidable. .
Impact Traffic -15b Intersection operations at Rainier Avenue and North McDowell Boulevard
will exceed thresholds of significance under cumulative plus project conditions, resulting in a
significant LOS impact.
Impact Traffic -15c: Intersection operations at Rainier. Avenue and project access would result in
delay to "right -turn egress movements from. the proposed project. No vehicle delays on Rainier
Avenue under the cumulative project scenario are anticipated. The construction of the Rainier
Avenue T, cross-town connector and U.S. 101 and Rainier Avenue Interchange will limit access
along the project frontage and therefore a traffic signal is not feasible mitigation for the impact.
Access "shall be limited to right -turn in and right -turn out when Rainier is extended (mitigation
measureiTraffic -Sb).
Impact Traffic -15e: Intersection operations at Corona Road and' North McDowell Boulevard are
anticipated to continue to exceed thresholds of significance under the cumulative plus project
conditions. Construction of'additional.travel lanes at this intersection conflict with General Plan
policy to avoid wider, more automobile- oriented intersections in favor of more pedestrian,
bicycle,, and transit - friendly designs A statement of overriding, considerations was adopted by
the City for this intersection for the cumulative. condition as part of the General Plan EIR
certification.
Impact Traffic -l6: As described above under existing plus project conditions, vehicle queuing at
the intersection of East Washington Street and North McDowell Boulevard (southbound right-
turn lane) exceeds thresholds of significance under cumulative plus project conditions.
Impact „Traffic -17: Northbound U.S. 101 at previously discussed segments (Pepper to Old
Redwood,Highway and East Washington to Lakeville Highway) will continue,to operate at LOS
F with volumes in excess of 10 percent of the operating capacity.
Planning Commissi'oh, Hearing - March 22, 2011
The Planning" Cotnmission held a public hearing to provide comments and receive public
testimony on, °the DEIR at "its meeting on March 22, 2011. Comments from one or more
Commissioners included the following:
Provide explanation of the potential' mitigation considered before determining that there was
no feasible mitigation for the significant and unavoidable impacts;
�, 5
,
® Explore additional energy improvements as, mitigation to further reduce impacts associated
with Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions ,(LEED certification, solar, building design
and �orientation, electric landscaping equipment, preferential parking for electric vehicles,
free!transit passes for employees, green roofs, covered parking to reduce heat island, etc.)
® Document how "the specific land use adjustments in the, DEIR project alternatives, were
selected, whether the alternatives could have been adjusted.. to achieve. greater reductions of
significant effects and whether Alternative B (Red, uced Project) is environmentally preferable
to Alternative C (Commercial /Residential Care)
® Identif location of gas'mams,on site; rv, ens R
Refine mitigation measures to clarify and ion accountability, monitoring, and
responsibility;
® Clarify whether potential° °'endangered species are present on the site, in response to one
public comment;
® Review appendices and. ensure use of current data;, vide j statement in project objectives related toy �``stibstantial demand for
e
g g
®
' P r o
regional and nei hborhoo'd retail, office, fitness and i4inig;"
® Analyze the environmentally superior altemativel _in m ore detail, as it is more .consistent with
General Plan;
p , re .rec,ent figures on vacancies in Petaluma,
® Request information about, otenhal enants , mo
and add ition p a e issues and deco
y p al discuss-ion, gof the ro`gt's effect o ,
O Clarif potential flooding Y�
ote
nd dram, d ensure hydrology analysis is accurate and
a,
current;
® Consider traffic circles . or 'roundabouts to mitigate .si`gnifi_cant impacts at identified
intersections including on North McDowell .:Blvd. '
® Provide additional °detail , on wetlands, and the ayailab'ility and,location o_ f offsite :mitigation;
® Concern about over concentration.of pharmacy, grocery, and fitness center uses in the area;
o Consider above ground ' arking'strueture'to replace parking lot and reduce related impacts;
m Clarify Analysis of storm water" retention capacity, runoff and water quality related to large
surface parking proposed;
® Consider'ways ioI use, gray water and rainwater capture;
Consider additional tree planting along McDowell and Highway 104 to reduce impacts;
® Explain or reconsider statement that there is 'no housing demand triggered, by theI proposed
® R. v ew likely impacts of tru , yn y and. consistency P j ct•
y p ., �
ck traff c on L ch Creek Way sten cy with General
Plan regarding general vehicle'eonnectionto Rainier extension; and'
" ® Consider lon g term use of 5'.045 acres of right . of way now reserved for' Rainier if,notheeded
for Rainier.
on comments from ; < mem ,
bers of the general ublic w,ere received. Seven of those
In additi , nine g p
commen y, ,d benefits of .
y , ts�n m su ort of the Deer Creek Villa
j increased revenue for the Cit and redu gng retail e'project based leakage currently t on the anticipate place (with
new obs
particular, emphasis on building and landscape supply) ,Qne , commenter noted that ,the project is
hap envisioned for the ,site in the General Plan, which' places retail there. ,Supporters
smaller t
urged certification of the EIR. Two members of the public expressed ,opposition to the project
questioned the adequacy of 'the
and q q y DEIR. Reasons for that opposition included outdated
G 6
T i
hydrology analysis, a belief that unspecified endangered species were present, need for traffic
analysis; related to Rushmore Avenue, uncertainty regarding the Rainier extension, noise impacts
to adjacent residential uses, and lack of consideration of the adjacent City well, .Concern was
J ° also expressed regarding` the timing of the Planning Commission hearing and the date of the
Council hearing to be held on the eve of Passover.
All comments received relating to CEQA issues will be fully responded to in the FEM, if the
Council "authorizes its preparation.
Planning Commission — Request for Review of FEIR Prior to.Recommendation
Prior to!,ipublic comments on the DEIR, the Planning Commission requested that the FEIR be
returned.for .Commission review when it is completed, deferring their recommendation on the
adequacy of the environmentaf documentation until that time.
FINANCIAIC IMPACTS
,
Deer Creek Village is a.cost recovery project with all costs of processing the application paid by
the a Meant. The .applicant has paid $241,364 in cost recovery fees to date. The cost recovery
pP
account .maintains a positive balance. The cost of preparation of the Environmental Impact
4 Report , is'' paid through a Professional Service Agreement 'b'etween the City of Petaluma and
WRA aid is paid for by the'applieant. The associated budget fot EIR is $128
Comments received during.,the, scoping phase of the 'DEIR,raised concerns that development of
D e anal; `ek Village, including a lar e home improvement center would result in urban decay.
g , g g p ,.
Deer r ysis of potential urban decay was prepared by Economic. & Planning Systems, Inc. in
September 2010 (Appendix C) and for CEQA purposes, included analysis of the individual and
cumulative effects of the proposed project on the performance of'P.etaluma's retail sector and
potential indirect adverse, physical effects caused by those effects.
It is important to note that th A u ose of the Urban Deca study was to determine
I
Whether l p y
the proposed." wou� resul in significant adverse yh si al.mpacts from urban
decay, not whether or not there would be retail .competition as a result, of the development of
Deer.Cr;eek Village.
The EP 'study found that the cumulative fripact of Deer Creek Village, excluding Re
ik 'S ., n v f therefore gency was
not too overwhelm the market'or�create°conditions conducive'to urban deca and
Y y'
r
the, "impacts were considered, less than significant. Further, the study found that the cumulative
. impact of the proposed project Regency would likely result in temporary�condit ions
'
percent l reta 1 capturee a nticipate d the DEIR ar xceed the general threshold of 10
alysis, there are a number of other
factors that lessen this potential..
The EPS analysis estimates that Deer Creek Village will generate $407,000 a year to the General
Fund iin new sales tax revenue. This represents a 42 percent increase in net new sales tax
revenues; gen by.new retail growth.
I ,.
Ii 6
I
I,
a,
ATTACHMENTS
aft.OEM , and Appendices endices reviousl delivered to CC
„• 1. Dr pp,, (p y on March 7, 2'011)
3. ' Pl`annin Comm b sioy /Completion of DEIR
2.
Notice H of Avail ,
g n Staff Report and Exhibits, March•22, 20:11
4. PI''anniiig Commission ,late mail packet , March'22, 2011
5. Additional public comments received after March 22, 2011
'
0