Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 6A 09/14/2009 September 14, 2009 CITY O1F PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA ~~~~1`~~~ ~~~ Agenda B'itle Public Hearing:.. to Receive Public Comment, Discussion of the Meeting Date: September 14, Draft Environmental Impact Report and. Possible Action to Direct Preparation of 2009 Final- Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed East Washington Place Mixed-Use Development, located at East Washington Street and Highway 101; Meeting Time: 7:00 P1VI APNs 007-031-001,, 007=241-002, 007-251-001, 007-473=040 Category: ^ Presentation ^ Appointments ^ Consent ~ public Hearing ^ Unfinished Business ^ New Business Department: ]Director: .Contact Person.: Phone Number: Planning i.~eoff Bradley, `Derek Farmer, Senior 707-778-4301 ]Planning. Manager Planner dotal Cost of Proposal. or Proiect: N/A Name of >~'und: N/A Amount Budgeted: N/A Account Number: N/A ltecommendafion: It is recommended, that the City Council'-take the following action: Receive public comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") for the proposed East Washington Place development, provide Council comment identifying any .changes or additional information to be incorporated into the Final EIR and authorize preparation of a Final EIR. 1. ^ First reading of Ordinance approved unanimously, or with unanimous vote to allow posting prior to second reading 2. ^ First reading of Ordinance approved without~uriariimous vote: Ordinance has been.published/posted prior to second reading; see Attachment 3. ^ Other action requiring special notice: Notice has been;given, see Attachment Summary Statement: Tentative Map and Design Review to subdivide an The applicant, Regency Centers, has. applied fora Vesting . approximately .33..74-acre property into six lots,to develop"the siteinto~a mixed-=use community consisting of approximately 362,000 square feet of retail, uses; includi"rig a 139;000 square "foot Target, store, .and 16,000 square feet of office space. A DEIR lias been .prepared to identify and discuss the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project and discuss possible mitigation measures to reduce such. impacts where feasible. The .DEIR also identifies areas where potential impacts cannot be reduced to aless-than-significant level. The DEIR was released for public review on July 16, 2009 for an original period of 45 days including a public hearing by the Planning Commission. The public review period has been extended for an additional 15 days to September 14, 2009 to allow the public comment hearing before the City Council to take~place during the comtnentperiod. Attachments to Agenda Packet.Item: A. Draft EnvironmentaloImpactRcport B. Notice of Extended Comment period and Notice of Public Hearings. C. Planning Commission Comment and Public Hearing Staff Report, August 25, 2009 Reviewed b_ Finance~I)irector: ,~ Reviewed by City Attorney: A r d b Cit Maria er: ~~ a Date: c~, ~ Date: / ~` Rev. # Date Last Revised: - Eile: C ~ITY ®~ ~ETAI,L710'IAy ~ALI~®RNIA SEPTEMBER 14, 2009 AGENDA REPORT FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND DISCUSSION ON TIIE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR TIIE PROPOSED EAST WASIFIINGTON PLACE DEVELOPMENT, LOCATED AT EAST WASHINGTON STREET AND IIIGIFIWAY 101 RECOMMENDATION: Receive public comment on the Draft Environmental Impact .Report ("DEIR") for the proposed East Washington Place development; provide Council comment .identifying any changes or additional information to be incorporated into the Final EIR and authorize preparation of a Final EIR. 2. BACKGROUND: In 2004, the applicant, Regency Centers, purchased. the project site and entered into a partnership with a residential builder to construct up to 300;000 square feet of retail uses and 227 residential units.. At that time, the project required a General Plan Amendment and Rezone to Planned Unit Development. A Draft Environmental .Impact Report (DEIR) was prepared for the project. Due to significant. and unavoidable impacts related to air quality and noise, City staff recommended that the residential portion of the project be eliminated. In the meantime, the City's revised General Plan 2025 proposed a mixed use land use designation for the project site. After General Plan adoption, the property was designated MU1B: Mixed Use 1B in the Implementing Zoning Ordinance adopted at the time of General Plan approval.. The applicant submitted a revised project consisting of approximately 3:62,000 square feet of retail uses and 16,000 square feet of second-story office uses. The City's retained consultant updated the previous DEIR to incorporate the revised proj ect. The current DEIR was released„ for public comment on July 16, 20.09 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 August 25, 2009. During the public review period it was decided to extend the period for an additional 15 days, through September 14, 2009, to allow the City Council hearing on the DEIR to occur during the comment period. All comments pertinent to the DEIR received during the public comment period will be responded to in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIIZ). At its August 25 meeting, the Planning Commission asked that the FEIR be brought back to the Planning Commission for review of the d additional .information to be provided in that'. document and deferred the Commission's recommendation ~on adequacy of the environmental evaluation until that stage. 3. DiscussaoN: Project Description The- applicant has applied for a Vesting Tentative:. Map and Design Review to subdivide an approximately :33,74-.acre property into six lots to develop the site into amixed-use community consisting of approximately 362,000 square-feet of retail uses; including a 139,000 square foot Target store; and .16,000 square feet. of office space. The purpose of the Vesting Tentative Map is to facilitate.-a flexible structure of'ground leases for tenants, as well as provide the main anchor tenant with. their own parcel. The six lots would range in size from. 0.54-acre to 12.71 acres, with the largest parcels incorporating the Target;site and several of the larger°proposed retail tenants. The six parcels would total 30.33 acres, with the remaining 3.41 acres::being .dedicated .for purposes of right-of--way and easements' for roadways and various public utilities. The proposed Target store would be located along a' ..northwesterly portion of the property with additional retail tenants positioned along the freeway to the northeast. Two-story buildings at the extreme northwestern corner of the site adjacent to the ;swim center would contain retail uses on the first floor and office uses on 'the second floor. 'The office space would be configured on the second floor of two of the retail buildings. The project would be served by 1,514 parking spaces and 126 bicycle spaces. Additional site amenities, .including several plaza ..areas with outdoor seating and public art, would be provided. The existing pedestrian overpass from.:the east side of Highway 101 to the project site would be retained and would lead into a central promenade through the middle of the site. Major access to the site would be'via a signalized intersection from East Washington Street to a new Johnson Drive, which would circulate around the existing pool and skate park site. To the south, access would be, provided from Lindberg Lane. Another .:access from East Washington Street to and from the project site would. be limited. to right turn in/out from Kenilworth Drive. Truck access to serve the retail portion of the project would be routed to the. rear of the center, along the Highway 101 frontage. The intent would be to keep trucks separate from car, bicycle and pedestrian areas by providing entry and exit points at the most northerly access point. Trees and vine covered. fences would further separate the- truck access from pedestrian and bicycle routes. In addition,. Caltrans has. planned .improvements to the: southbound. on-ramp onto _Highway 101 off East `Washington Street o meet modern public afety standards. These improvements have been funded and are anticipated for construction in late 2010. Current plan submittals reflect the maximum amount of land expected. to be used. by Caltrans for the on-ramp improvements. However, if they do not require as ;large aright-of-way, the overall-square footage of the stores along Highway 10:1 :could be increased by approximately 13,000 square feet. Therefore, the overall square-footage of the project; buildout lias been. considered in the DEIR for sake of overall project analysis, although the current development plans do :not. It should be noted that the 13,000 square feet between current plans and project buildout are all retail. Improvements to access streets would include providing a•bicycle .lane along the project's frontage, a second left turn-lane on westbound East Washington. Street as it approaches 'the Johnson DriveBllis Street intersection; a new Johnson Drive that would also provide access to the swim center/skate park 3 and the Fairgrounds;, sidewalks along- the north and south sides of East Washington. Street; and realignment- of Kenilworth Drive to connect East: Washington Street with Lindberg Lane. Kenilworth Drive Would,h_aue, curb, .gutter, sidewalk and a bicycle lane':on the east side of the street .and would be designed to accommodate future redevelopment; of the Fairground site, should it occur. The new road configurati"ons would .clarify 'the.' existing "vehicle circulation ~ andparking -layout around the swim center and provide :better separation between pedestrians and vehicles by providing. continuous sidewalks, In ;addition, the Swim Center parking would be increased: from 63 to 84 spaces; and the applicant, would replace -the old pool solar panels with.new solar thermal water panels. Format of the Draft EIR The DEIR consists, of 14- sections'. that evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed project, identified in the following issue areas: - Aesthetics - AgriculturaLResources - Air. Quality - Biological Resources - Cultural Resources - Geology and Soils - Hazards and Hazardous 1Vlaterials - Hydrology and Water .Quality - Land Use - Noise - Population, Housing and`lrban Decay - Public- Services - Transportation - Utilities The analysis for each of 'these issue. areas .includes ari .overview of the existing conditions of the project site compared. with those with ncorporation'ofth~ project and discusses the local, State and Federal laws,. regulations, ordinances; and policies that apply to ahe project and. its conformance to them.: They anal..ysis then appl'i'es thresholds of significance based on the CEQA.guidelines and other regulator-y criteria to assess whether or not, the project will have an impact and, if so, the significance of that impact. In .areas where. an impact occurs; the DEIR will. discuss. levels of significance and ~possbe and feasible mitigation measures to ensure that. the: impact. is reduced to ales-than-significant. level. In areas where the impact cannot be reduced to ales-than-sigri'ficant level, a discussion of overriding considerations is presented. Discussion of cumulative impacts occurs in each of these subsections, while discussion of alternatives is provided at the conclusion of the impact analysis. Impacts and Mi€igation.Measures The DEER has identified .several .areas where `the proposed project would... have an environmental impact. The impacts are .defined as a substantial; or potentially substantial; adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project. Most of the impacts identified as potentially-significant can be°reduced to ales-than-si'gnficanf,level with the'incorporation of various mitigation measures. These mitigation :measures .have' been identified in the DEIR and would be incorporated into- the environmental 'determination. and' project" approval and carried out through a 1VlitigationlVlonitbring and Reporting Program ('MIVIRP).and project conditions of approval. Impacts that are Significant and Unavoidable The DE_IR has also. identified potentiahly significant -impacts on the environment that cannot be mifigated~ to ales-than-significant, level. These impacts. include one identified significant and unavoidable .impact on air quality and. traffic impacts. With .one exception, the traffic impacts relate to impacts on intersections already ;found to be significant .arid unavoidable in the General Plan 2025 EIR. Qne newly identified significant .and unavoidable impact not included in he General Plan 2025 EIR results from adding vehicle trips to segments of the. 1 O1 freeway which .are already operating at unacceptable levels at certain periods: The i"mpacts already found to'be significant and unavoidable in the General. Plan EIR are recognized in the E. Washington Place•EIR, and remain applicable to the project. -Thee significant' and unavoidable air quality impact'relates primarily tb the regional air quality plans as stated in the BAAQIVID's 2005 Ozone Strategy and the greater land use. densities assumed under that document. It should'be noted that the OzoneStrategy is currently being updated and it is assumed that the revised project would be in compliance when that document is formally adopted. In the short term; however, the air quality impacts would still be considered significant and unavoidable. The E. Washington Place. DEI`R uses a method of .analysis for greenhouse gas emissions that relies on reducing emissions from a 'business-as-usual' scenario by a percentage that would implicitly and proportionally meet State goals' for GHG targetsa~t by A:B. 32: The project GHG emissions impact is therefore found- fo. be less than significant. This method has .been recognized as an acceptable means of analysis by some climate change experts; but was not the method used in the General Plan 2025 EIIZ. .Approval of the project despite `impacts determined- as significant and unavoidable in the E. Washington. Place E-IR and the air quality/ozone and applicable traffic impacts identified as significant and... unavoidable ;in the. General Plan. EIR would require a statement , of overriding considerations similar to that adopted fo"r the General Plan, but specific, to this individual project. The statement of overriding considerations is not necessary to certify the EIR as an informational document; but-would be required by CEQA prior`to project approval. Planning- Commission Hearing`"-August 25, 2009 The Planning. Commission held a public hearing to provide comments and :receive public testimony on the DEIIZ at its; meeting>on August 25; 2009. The .comments from the Commissioners included the following: a) Concerns about. project impacts on downtown business. b) Concerns regarding the availability of adequate water to serve the project. c) Issues related. to the~current:retail vacancy rate, blight and potential "ghost mall" scenario. " d) Comments regarding traffic/truck circulation and potential impacts on nearby streets and uses. e) Johnson;Driwe as the, primary project access and safety ofpedestrians accessing the swim center and skateboard park. f) -Comments regarding the possibility of better transit access. g) Potential :for re-configuration of on-site parking. ' h) Comments regardng'the=definition and interpretation of "mixed use". h i) ,Comments related to,air-quality impacts and:mti'gationm~asures. j) Appreciation for proposed LEED compliance. and quality of site design. In addition, comments -from. ten members of the general public were received and ranged from overall. support of the ~prgject to concerns regarding the viability of continued skate park operations during project construction. The project applicant noted an ear-lies process by which the City and the developer entered: into written,agreements'relatng to the proposed access over Johnson Drive. Those agreements mclud'ed >a lease amendment between the, City and the fairgrounds association. removing. the Johnson Drive area from the fairgrounds .lease, An option.. to acquire an easement over the area needed for Johnson, Drive was .granted by the City ao thee, project applicant by Ordinance 218'1 N.C:S. in June, 2004. A precondition o exercising the option is receipt by the applicant of project entitlements. Planning Commission -Request for Review of FEIR Prior to Recommendation After public comments were received on the DEIR, °the Planning Commission requested that. the :.. FEIR be returned for Commission review when it is completed,. deferring their recommendation on adequacy of .the environmental documentation until that tune: Subsequent to the. Planning Commission meeting on August 25, City staff has been working with the EIR consultant to address the comments and concerns raised -during the hearing .for consideration and incorporation into the FEIR while comments on the DEIR are still in process. In addition, staff is .locating updates to the 200.5: Ozone Strategy and a current timefrarne for its anticipated formal adoption by BAAQMID. 4. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: This is a cost. recovery project;;, the applicant will pay for tfie cost of processing the application. The project is also subject o all City development fees and :related mitigation fees. The appropriate train and a ent of such fees will be determined by City staff and incorporated into the conditions g p ym. of approval for the project. A'T'TACHMENT'"A" The Draft 'Environmental` Impact Report (2 volumes -Report + Appendices), has been distributed. Additional copies are ,available. ~in,the Offi_ce.of the City Clerk and on line at http://cityofpetaluma.riet/cdd/plan=eir.html ~~ ,~~~~ IaTotice '®f Public 'ealrn~s Caty~ of _Petaflnma CoanenuntylDevelopffient ~9epartanent 11 ]English;St. Petaluma, CA ,94! (707) 778-4301, Notice is herebygiVen that the Draft°Environmental Impact:Report(DEIR)°prepared,for;the East Washington Place Projects which was the subject ,of`the City's Notice of Availability published `July 16;,:2009;, will be; available for public review and;corriment pwsuant~to State of.California;Environriiental,Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines for an extended period.'The initial 45-day public ;review period- for: the DEIR began on July 1'6 2009. and is hereby extended~to!September 14,'2009:.~Commenis:may~besubmitted`by facsunile letter or:electronic mail. The East Vi~ashington.Place DElIt was;preparedao:analyze the potential.;environmental impacts~from the subdivision; of Lhe 33.7 acre project site into 6; parcels and?.development of these.areas wvitfi approximately 361,951 square feet (sf) of commercial. `land uses, approximately 1:6,000 square feet. of office uses, a 1,5.1:0-spacexparking; lot and site amenities:.'The .project includes a number of .circulation "improvements on and` off site, including accommodating, proposed Caltrans.Iighway 101'/East Wasliington interchange improvements: The East Washington Place-project site .is'located onthesouthwestern corner of Highvray 101';and:Easf Washington Street; adjacent; to the Sonoma=lVlarin County :Fairgrounds ;in the City of Eetaluma, ~(forcnerly .;'the ite of the KenilworthJunior High School): The :.former junior high: school has been: demolished: The :remainder..of the site contains roadways; paved parking lots. and:°athletic facilities. `Existing vegetation on the site,.'in he form of ornamental "landscaping, includes :non=native trees, .shrubs and turf groundcover.. A total. of 0:23 ,,acres of isolated seasonal'°wetlands~and 0:09 ..acres of linear. wetlands-occw on the site in the ruderal area east of"the. ba§ebah'.:field. ,. The. linear. wetlands occur along~a: drainage„ditch,onthe west: ide of Kenilworth Drive., TheDEIR is currently available~,forpublic,review;at the fohowing,aocations: ® .City of Petaluma,. Community'Development'Department, 11':English Street,;Petaluma; CA.94952 e Petaluma,PublicLibrary, 100 Fairground>:prive, Petaluma, CA 94952' 0 htt~//cityofpetaluma.net -~ "East WashingtonP,lace FIR" Hard copies~and~digtal copies~ofthe DEIRarg available throughafie Community;Development;Department Siggficant`effectsron.the environmentanticipated;as aresult ofthe~project include-impacts to aesthetics, air quality; biological resowces, cultural. resources,, :geology .Bc soils, hazards and' hazardous materials, $ydrology & water` quality, noise, transportation/trafficrand ut'-lties.. A ,public. hearing, on the I)EI1i wih be: held `6y the-Planning~Commission; on August°2S, 2009 at or after 7.:00' p.m; The City,'Goancil will;bold a pullic'hearing on the DEIR:on September.14,:2009<at~or after 7:00 pm. All substantive coinments on 'environumental'issues will be addressed in the Finale FIR., 'The noticed Bearings are to receive comment on~:the DEIR only;, Hearings to~.consider project approval will be' noticed,for a;later, date: Comnients on the DEIR should be submitted to __ _. _ .. City of,Petaluma: Community Development Department Attention: Betsi LewitEerLDerek;Fanner ___._ _ 11; Enghsh.Street Retaluma,,.CA 94952 Fax: (707)4778-449$ Email ,cdd(n?,ci.pefaluma:ca.us CITY OF hETALLTM'A, CAI,IFORN~IA . STAFF' REPORT Community Development.Department, Planning Division,,:11 English Street, P, etaluina,, CA 94952 (707) 778-4301 Rax(707f~7~78-4498 E-mails;planning@ci.petaluma:ca.us DATE: August 25, 2009 AGENDA ITEM N0. 2 TO: Plarining~ Commission PREPARED B'Y,: Betsi Lewitter, Consulting Planner. Derek Farmer,.Senior Planner REVIEWED BY: Geoff Bradley, Planning Manager SUBJECT': EAST WASHINGTON PLACE MIXED=iJSE DEVELOPMENT Easf~WashingtonStreet and Highway 10`1 .DRAFT .ENVIRONMENTAL 'IMPACT REPORT -~ - - Staff-recominends that the Planning Commission: 1. ;Provide comment.on,the Draft Environmental' Irripact Report. 2. Receive public testimony on,the Draft Environmental Impact Report. ~~ ~- ,:. .• 4 " ~ .~ .. ~. ', ~~ Project: Project Fi1e.No. 04 GPA=;0681-C'R East Washington Place 1Vlixed Use Development ' ' East Washington Street;_and Highway 10.1: APNs Q07--031-001; 007=241-.002,`097-2'51-Q01;,007=473-040' ~Project;Planner; Derek;Farmer•arid Bets Lewitter Project. Applicant:.. „ Regency Centers Property Owners: Regency Petaluma, LLA; Petaluma City Joint Union High. School Districf.. Nearest Cross Street' to:`Project Site: ' Kenlworth,Drive Property Size.: ., .33.74:acres° Site~Characteristics'; The site is the 'location, `of the` ;former ;Kenilworth Junior High. School, which, has Been :demolished. Existing ,uses on~'tlie property" 'include ball fells, which will be relocated to school district. . Page;'1 ~ , property.. The topography is relatively flat, with a one to five percent slope: There are some mature trees of various health and seasonal`wetlands on site. The wetlands are adjacent to~the athletic fields and receive excessive irrigation runoff from the athletic fields in the dry season and are seasonally wet in the winter months. Proposed i7se: Development of approximately 362,000 gross square feet of cornmercal retail ..and .1.6,000 square feet of office uses. Zoning: MTJ1B: Mixed Use 1B General Plan Viand Use: M~Xed Use Subsequent Actions after Planning Commission Review: ® City Council.. review of the Draft EIR ® Planning Commission recommendation on the Vesting'Tentatve 1VIap and Design Review ® City Council consideration/action on the Final EIR (Per the City's Environmental Review Guidelines, the Planning Commission may request tg review the Final EIR or additional information before making; a'recommendation to the City Council.) ® City Council action on the Vesting Tentative"Map R :_ ... ~_ lBACB~G~t®UPBD In 2004, the applicant, ,Regency.Centers; purchased ;the project site and entered into a partnership with a residential builder, to construct ug to 300,000 quare -feet of retail uses and 227 .residential units. At that Time; the project required ;a General .Plan Amendment and Rezone to Planned Unit Development. A Notice of Preparation for' an Environmental Impact Report was distributed by the City for the project on February 14, 2005:; and, a Draft Environmental Impact Report for agency and public review was released on February°28, 20Q7. No public hearing was scheduled; the comment period was open ended.: Due to significant and. unavoidable ~ impacts related to air quality and noise, City staff recommended that the residential ;portion of the project ;be. eliminated. In the meantime, the City's revised General Plan 2025; was.in development and the project site was given a Mixed Use land use designation. in the General, Plan and Implementing Zoning Ordinance. The applicant submitted a revised project consisting of approximately 362,000 square feet of retail uses and 1.6,000 square. feet, of second-story office uses and the project was considered. within the framework of`the .new General Plan aril zoning uses. and classifications. Although the revised project was in conformance with the.-land :use densities as ,envisioned in the new General Plan, the project still; contained significant and unavoidable ;impacts °related to air quality which will be discussed. below. Page 2 to f>aRO.D~C'P ~ESCRO~T~O~ The applicanf has applied .for a Vesting Tentative Map and Design Review to subdivide an approximately 33.74-acr-e property into six lots to .develop the site into amixed-use community consisting of approxmatehy 3'62,000 square feet of:reta uses; including a. 13"9;000 square foot Target= store; and 16;000 square feet, of office .apace. The: purpose of"'the Vesting Tentative Map is to facilitate a flexible structure of ground leases for tenants; as weld as provide the. main anchor tenant with their ownparcel. Thee six lots would range in size from.0.54-acre to 12.71 acres, with the. largest parcels incorporating.. the Target site and several of he larger proposed retail tenants. The .six parcels .would total "30.33 acres, with the remaining 3.41 acres being dedicated for purposes of right-of-way and easements for roadways and carious public utilities. The proposed Target store would be located along a northwesterly portion of the property with additional retail tenants positioned. along the freeway~to "the northeast. Two-story buildings at the extreme northwestern corner of'the site adjacent to the swim center would. contain retail uses on the first floor and office uses on, they second floor. The office space would be configured on the second floor of two of the retail buildings. The project would be served by 1,514 parking spaces and t26 bicycle spaces. Additional site amenities; including several- plaza areas with outdoor seating. and public art, would be provided. The existing pedestrian overpass. from the east- side of Highway I01 to the project site would be retained .and would lead into a central promenade through the, middle of the site. Major' access to the site. would, be„via a, signalized intersection from East. Washington Street to a new Johnson Drive; which would. circulate. around the existing pool. and skate park site. To the south, access would be provided from Lindberg Lane.. Ariotlier access from East: Washington Street to and from the project site would be limited to right turn in/out from Kenilworth Drive. In addition; Caltrans has planned improvements to the southbound on-ramp onto Highway 101 off East Washington Street to meet modern public safety standards. Current. plan submittals reflect the.' maximum amount of land. expected to ,be used by Caltrans for the on-ramp improvements. ~-However,- if they .do not require as large aright=of--way, the "overall square footage of the stores along Highway 101 could be increased by approximately 13',000 square feet. Therefore, the overall' square.-footage of the project buildout has been considered in the DEIR fore sake of overall. project analysis, although the. current development plans do .not. It should be noted that -the 13,000 square feet between.. current plans and projecf buildout are all ..retail. Improvements to access streets would include providing a bicycle lane along the project's frontage; a .second. left turn lane on westbound East Washington Street as it approaches the Johnson Drive%Ellis Street intersection; a :new Johnson Drive that would also provide access to the swim center/skate, park and the Fairgrounds; sidewalks along the north and south sides of East Washington Street; and realignment of Kenilworth Drive to connect East Washington Street with Lindberg Lane. Kenilworth Drive would have curb; gutter; sidewalk and a bicycle lane on the east. side :of the street :and would be designed to, accommodate future redevelopment of the Fairground site,; should. it .occur. The. new road configurations would clarify the existing vehicle circulation and parking layout around the swim center sand- provide better separation between Page 3 ~\ pedestrians and vehicles by providing ..continuous sidewalks. In addition, the Swim Center parking would be increased from 63 to 84 spaces, and the applicant would replace the old pool solar panels with new solar thermal water panels. Truck, access to serve the retail portion of'the project..-would be routed to the rear of the center; along, the Highway I01 frontage.. The intent is to keep trucks separate from car, bicycle and pedestrian areas" by providing entry and exit'ponts at the most northerly access point. Trees and vine covered. fences would. further. separate the truck acce"ss from pedestrian and bicycle routes. S~A~~ A~~~~YSBS Format of the Draft EIR As mentioned..above, aDraft Environmental Impact Report (DETR) has been prepared for the proposed project. The DEIR consists of 14 sections that°evaluate the environmental impacts of the proposed project, identifi'ed'. in the following issue .:areas; - Aesthetics - Agricultural Resources - Air Quality - Biological Resources - Cultural Resources - Geology and ,Soils - Hazards' and Hazardous. Materials - Hydrology sand Water Quality - Land Use - Noise. 1 - Population, Housing and Urban Decay - .Public Services - Transportation - Utilities The analysis for each of these issue areas .includes an overview of the existing conditions of the project site compared with those° .with incorporation oftheproject and discusses the local, State and Federal; laws; regulations, ordinances, and policies that apply to the project and its conformance to them. The. analysis then. applies thresholds ofsgnificanee based on th`e 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: In:areas where an impact occurs, the DEIR will discuss levels of significance and possible and feasible~mitgation measures to ensure -that the.impact is reduced to ales-than-significant level. In areas' where the impact cannot'be reduced to ales-than=si'gn'ificant level, a discussion of overriding considerations is presented. Discussion of cumulative impacts occurs in each of these subsections, while discussion of alternatives is provided. at the conclusion of the impact analysis. P-age 4 ~~ Impacts and Mitigation Measures The DEIR has identified several areas where the proposed project would have an environmental impact. The impacts are defined as a .substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project. Most of the impacts identified as potentially significant can be reduced to ales-than-significant level with the incorporation Hof various mitigation measures. These mitigation measures have been identified. in the DEIR and would be, incorporated. into the environmental determination and project approval and carried out through a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and project conditions of approval. Impacts that are Significant and Unavoidable The DEIR has also identified ..potentially .significant impacts, on the environment that cannot be mitigated to ales-than-significant level.. These ..impacts would cause unavoidable significant impacts under Air Quality.,, (See Table 2:-1 Summary of Impacts and. Mitigation Measures starting on page 2-4 of the document for a complete list of all impacts and proposed mitigation measures.) 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. The Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy is the regional' air-plan prepared to accommodate growth, to reduce the -.high levels of ozone and ozone precursors within the areas under the jurisdiction of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAQQMD), to: return clean air to the region and to minimize the impact on the eeonorny. The 2005 Ozone Strategy was based on the 2003 ABAG projections, which are in turn based on land use information provided by cities and counties. General Plans that are .consistent with the projections of employment and population forecasts identified by ABAG are considered cgnsi'stent with the growth projections of the adopted air quality plan. The City of :Petaluma recently adopted a, new General Plan. 2025. 'The development and growth assumptions. in the 2005' Ozone Strategy were based on the. City's- previous General Plan, which included different land use and. zoning designations' for the project site.. Those designations did not permit the intensity of development, that is currently under the Mixed Use land use designation, The employee and retail patron population that would be generated by the project, as well as. the associated vehicle trips, was not accounted .for in the 2005 Ozone Strategy. Therefore; while the project is consistent with the City's new General Plan, it is inconsistent with the Clean Air Plan because of the difference in population and vehicle miles traveled projections. The .City's General Plan EIR also found that because of the difference in population and vehicle miles traveled projections; 'the General Plan is inconsistent with the 2005 Ozone Strategy. An update to the 2005 Ozone Strategy based on new population projections is currently being Page 5 1~ developed. Until the updated regional air plan is adopted, the impact would .be considered significant. Pursuant to. CEQA Section 15183, this impact has already been analyzed in the recently certified General Plan EIR for which. overriding considerations were adopted. It should be noted that this Section mandates that projects which are. consistent with the development density established by existing .zoning,: community plan or ,general plan policies for which an EIR was. certified shall not require .additional environrriental review, except as might be necessary to examine. whether there are project-specific: significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. A Mitigation measure outlining ways in which the project• could reduce air pollutant emissions from both traffic trips and area sources isdiscussed in tlie.DE:TR,as follows: Mitigation Measure AQ-1: The project applicant should reduce air pollutant emissions from both traffic trips and area sources through the measures listed;below: © Bicycle amenities shall be provided for the project; including secure bicycle parking for retail employees, bicycle racks for retail customers, and bike lane connections to the site. o Pedestrian facilities should include easy access and sgnage to bus stops and roadways that -serve the major site uses (e.g. retail and office uses). a ..Project si"te employers should be required to promote transit use by providing transit information and incentives to.employees. o 'Provide exterior electrical outlets to encourage use of electrical landscape equipment at retail and office uses. . e Prohibit idling of trucks at .loading docks for more: th"an 5 minutes per State law and include signage indicating such a prohibition. ® Provide 11.0 and 220 volt electrical outlets at loading docks. © Implement a landscape,plan that provides shade trees along pedestrian pathways. While 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, it should also 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 above would reduce ozone precursor and PM 10 emissions by at least another 4 pounds per day. 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. The project is ;anficpated to generate new -automobile trips during weekday PM -peak-hour periods. CQ emissions from traffic generated by the project' would be the pollutant of greatest. concern at the local'level. Congested intersections with„a large volume of traffic have the greatest. potential to cause high,-localized concentrations of CQ. 'The intersections. of North 1VIcDowelUEast' Washington, Ellis Street/East Washington, and Payran/East Washington would be the most affected by the project and experience the combination of highest traffic volumes and worst congestion. Page 6 i'~ Features in :the proposed project and aecounted'for:in the air quality modeling that would reduce emissions related to the project include the following: ® Mixture of uses ('e;g. retail and office) . o Proximity to local -and regional transit ® Pedestrian linkages throughout the site; and.,to adjacent areas o ~ Bicycle linkages throughout the site (including bike lanes on. adj acent:. "roadways) m Traffic :calming features such as slow posted speeds; speed .bumps. and pedestrian crossings In addition, the effect of pass-by trips (trips that would .already be on the roadway network and passing by the site) and diverted trips° (those that would al"ready be on the roadway near the site) which. are not really new trips, were taken into account in the emissions modeling. The same rnitgatibn measure recommended for AQ=1 was .identified as .mitigation for this impact.. However, the measure would not reduce emissions below the BAAQMD thresholds and the air quality mpact°would be significant and unavoidable. Overriding Considerations CEQA Section 15091 requres,pul?li'c.agences to make.gne ormore written findings for each of the significant environmental effects identified; in an EIR .prior to project approval. The. findings must be supported :by substantial ;evidence in the record and "the agency must present a brief explanation ofthe rationale for each finding. Where ,potential environmental 'impacts 'have: been identified as significant and unavoidable, CEQA requires decision-makers to balance the economic, .legal; social, technological.. or other benefits of the project against the unavoidable project-related environmental effects when determining whether or not to ;approve the project. If the. specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits ~~of the proposed .project', outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, then those..environmental effects maybe considered "acceptable". In, order to approve a project that will, result in significant adverse environmental. effects identified in the EIR that :cannot be reduced to a level, of ess -than significant, theLead Agency must state `in writing the. specific reasons to support the project approval based on the Final ETR and/or otherinformafion, in the record: This is formally_ known as a "Statement' of Overriding Considerations" and is-made in addition to the findings, required, under CEQA Section 1'5091. If findings of~~ overriding; consideration are not. adopted by the Lead Agency in those instances where uriauoidalile project-related environmental. effects identi"feed in the EIR would :remain ... significant,'the~"Lead Agency cannot approve the proposed project. Page 7 t~ Analysis of Alternatives The.DETR evaluated three;: alternatives: The "No.Project" alternative, the "Mitigated Alternative" and the: "Alternate. 'Use". alternative and. compared the environmental. effects that might be .associated with these hypothetical alternatives.-with those associated with the proposed project. The Alternatives discussion begins on page 5=1 ofthe DEIR. Under the "No -Proj,ect" alternative, which is required by CEQA, the proposed project would not be constructed and the site would rernam .in its existing, condition. The existing.. Carter Little League field would remain on site.. . Under the "Mitigated Alternative"° he project.. ~-would include -a reduced amount of retail development. This :alternative would reduee some of'the impacts identified in the IDEIR related to air quality and transportation. 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`. A segment of the south portonof the site wouldnot'be developed with structures, but would be improved with amenities and serve as an open pace; .park,. or bicycle/pedestrian facility. It could. also be used to provide services. to reduce Petaluma's greenhouse gas: emission"s, such as parking, for carshare companies, solar panels for recharging electric'wehicles or tree,planting.. " was designed to include. a combination of retaiUoffice and The .Alternate Use Alte_rnatiue" ' residential .uses. It includes 270;000 square feet of retail and. T5;000 square feet of office for a total of 285,0.00 square feet of mixed=use development: However, it would also include development. of 225 residential units. on 9 acres at.°the ~soutl and east portions of the site. The residences would be set back 150 feet from Highway 10.1 which would create. an"area to be filled with a combination of carports, solar panels, `trees; restored'native vegetation; open space and/or a linear path. The ~alfernative would require; a soundwall to be built between 'the residences and Highway 101. ~ Based. on the evaluation.in .the DEIR;; the "No, Project," :alternative would be regarded as the environmentally superior alternative: However, CEQA requires that if' the "No Project" alternative "is the environmentally superior alternative; then. the EIR .must .also designate the next most. envirorirnentally preferable:-alternative: The "Mitigated' Alternative" would not avoid the traffic-related `air quality impacts; it would lessen 'the degree of those impacts and it would. prevent exceeding the BAAQNID threshold of 80 pounds/day for Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) and Nitrogen Oxides;. reducing"this impact to `a,less-than-significant level. P~J~LIC CO.fi~lilVi~NYS A Notice of Availability of an EIR and Public Hearing~was-published in the Argus Courier and notices; were Sent to residents and:. property owners within 1,000 feet 9~f the subject property; as well'as interested parties who requested notification;. Written. comments, received prior to the distribution of the staff report are attached. Due to the level of interest in this proj;ect,'staff expects there will also'be written correspondence submitted at the August.25th Planning Commission meeting. - - Page 8 1 i .. .,, .. . ., , .; Pursuant:. to CEQA Guidelines Section 1508,2, a Notice of Preparation (NOP} advising that an EIR was to .be prepared for the- project was sent to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to responsible and/or trustee state' agencies:. After receiving ;the NOP, these agencies had 30 days in which to ~cornment on how, i_ri terms of scope and content; he DEIR should treat environmental information related to the' agency's. statutory.responsbilities: Once a DEIR is prepared, it must be routed through the State. Clearinghouse to all responsible and/or trustee agencies. The agencies have 45 calendar days iri wliicb to comment on the DEIR. At the same time. the DEIlZ,s sent.. to the State Clearinghouse, the public must. be notified that the DEIR is available for review. A notice; was published in the Argus Courier on July 16 and sent to residents and', property owners within, 1.,000 feet of tYie~subject ,property,, as well as interested parties. A subsequent notice, advised of the extended 60 day comment period to September 14 and the :City Council public hearing on the.DEIR on the. same date. Hard copies; .and computer disks. of the DEIR and ,appendices have been made: available at the CDID offices and the public library. A copy of the DEIR and .appendices was also posted on the City's web site. The purpose of the August 25 hearing is. to receive public input on the adequacy and completeness . of the analysis presented. in the DEIR: As previously stated, .the City's Environmental Guidelines, also require a public hearing on the IDEtR before the City Council. Once the City Council public hearing on the Draff EIR has been. formally closed, all written, and verbal comments 'received. on the 'drab will be compiled, •;and responses fo those comments will be presented in the FEIR. Per the City's' Environrriental Guidelines; "the Planning Commission. may request: to review the FEIR before.. making a .recommendation to the City Council, but Planning Commission review of "the FEIR is not required bystate.law. ._ Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission provide comment. and take public testimony .regarding the DEIR for the -East: Washington Place mixed use protect. Once the Planning Commission has completed its review, staff will forward any Planning Commission questions or commen, is to the City Council for their consideration during' the Council's public hearing.on the DEIR; `scheduled for September Y4;'2Q09. ,. ATTAC.HME~TS~ A. IDraft~Environmental Impact Report (previously delivered. to Planning Commissioners) Page 9 ~~