Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Staff Report 5.A 01/04/2010
e0 CITY~OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA .~C8111,JC99'~ ~~ ZO 1' a AGEI~TDA "II,I. Agenda Title: Resolution Certifying.. a Final Environmental -Impact,Report; , Meeting Date: January 4, 2010 Resolution Making Findings 'and Adopting a Mitigation .Monitgring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations; and 1Vleetin~ Time: 7:00 P1VI Resolution Approving a Vesting Tentative Nlap, for the Proposed. East Washington Place Project;,located atEast Washington Street and Highway 10`1.; APNs 007-031=00;1, 007=241-002, 007-2'51-001, 007-473=040 Category: ^ Presentation ^ Appointments ^ Consent ®,:Public;Hearing ^ Unfinished Business ^ New Business L)epartment: Director: Contact Person`. Phone Number: Planning Geoff Bradley;. Derek Farmer, Senior 707-778-4301 Planning Manager Planner Total Cost of Proposal. or Project: N/A Name of Fund: N/A Amount Budgeted: N/A Account~.Number: N/A Recommendation: It is recommended t>.at the CityCouncil take: the following action: 1. Adopt Resolution Certifying an Environmental Impact Report; 2. Adopt Resolution Making' Findings, and Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations;: 3. Adopt Resolution Approving the. Vesting Tentative Map, subject to conditions of approval. 1. ^ First reading of Ordinance approved unanimously,, or with unanimous vote: to allow posting prior to second reading 2. ^ Firstreading of Ordinance approved without unanimous voter Ordinance liar been publiShecUposted prior to second reading; see Attachment 3. ^ Other action requiring special notice: Notice has been given, see Attachment ;Suininary :Statement: The applicant, Regency Petaluma, LLA, has applied for a Vesting T.entatve Map and Design Review to subdi-vide an approximately 3.3.74-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 proposed 139,000 square foot Target .store; and 16;000 square feetof office space (the "Project"). "The Planning Commission reviewed the, Project on November 24 arid, December 8:;; 2009: After deliberating aril taking public testimony the Commission adopted a Resolution recomineridrig the City Council certify the> Final. Environmental Impact: Report and. Adopt a 1Vltgati'on'Montoring andaReporting Program and Statement ofO,verridng Considerations. The Commission split 3-3 on votes to recommend.ether approval or denial of`the Vesting Tentative Map, subject to conditions of approval, and therefore this resolution is presented without Commission. recominend'afion, The CEQA actions were separated into two resolutions'after Planning Cornmi"ssion hearing, because findings,. adoption of an,MM_RP and adoption ofa statement of overriding considerations are riot required unless the City Council determines°to approve the Project,. Aftachments~to Agenda Packet Item: . . A. .Draft Resoluti`on'Gertifyng ar Final Environmental Impact Report .,_ B. braft; Resol"ution Making Findings and Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring -and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations: G. Draft. Resolution Approving a Vesting Tentative Map, subject to Conditions of Approval. D..Plannirig Commission .Staff Report ' E: Fiscal and;Economic Impact Analysis F: ~r utc"Received Letters and Documents - G. Vesting Tentative Map and Design' Review Plan Sets 11 x 17" (hand delivered separately) - H. Final. Environmental Impact Report~(hand delivered separately)_ _ Reviewed by .Finance Dr-ecfor: Review C Attorne A rov ~~' 1Vlana er: ~_ .Date: l ~ ' ~ 1 '~ ~ Date: Z. -Date: ~ -Z 9-~ _ ~, Rev. # Date Last Revised: File: 2 CITY OF PETAI.UlVIAy .CALIFORNIA JANUARY 4, 20:10 AGENDA REPORT FOR' RESOLUTION CERTIFYING' A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:REPORT RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION 1VIONITOItING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS; AND RESOLUTION APPROVING A VESTING TENTATIVE 1VIAP, FOR THE PROPOSED EAST WASHINGTON PLACE PROJECT, LOCATED AT EAST WASHINGTON STREET AND )EIIGHWAY lOl, APNS OO7- 031-001, 007=241-002, 007-251-001,;007-473-040 RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution Certifying a Final Environmental .Impact Report;. Resolution Making Findings and ..Adopting a 1VTifigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement. of Overriding Considerations; and Resolution Approving a Vesting Tentative. Map, subject to conditions of approval, for the East Washington Place Project. 2. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission considered.. the Final EIR and Vesting Tentative Map and began Site Plan and Architectural Review for the Project at noticed public hearings on November 24 and December 8, 2009. The Planning Commission found the Final EIR adequate and adopted a resolution recommending that the City Council certify the EIR, adopt the Mitigation and Monitoring Program set forth in the Final EIR and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Project. The Commission deliberated on the Vesting Tentative Map and considered draft conditions of approval presented by staff and additional conditions of approval to respond to concerns raised by various commissioners. The Commission voted 3-3 to approve the Vesting Tentative Map with additional conditions, and. also voted 3-3 on_a motion to deny the map with conditions. Therefore, both motions failed, and -the suggested additional conditions were not adopted. The suggested additional conditions are listed below. Some are already included in whole or in part in the draft conditions prepared by staff as part of Attachment D. 1. Signage shall adhere-fo City code. 2. Project shall be Gold LEED certified [a higher level than proposed in the EIR or staff draft conditions]. 3. Parking lot trees shall shade at least 50% of the lot within 15 years (calculated at noon on the date of August 21 of that year) 4. Consider a vacancy tax or provision to require applicant to pay 3 years of sales tax revenue from Target tenant; should Target vacate and the space remain empty 5. Defer construction of 20% of parking areas, to be placed in 'landscape reserve,' with City staff to evaluate need for these spaces after 12 months of Project operation. 6. Remove parking around Buildings SS and S8 except handicap spaces and loading as necessary 7. Widen Kenilworth Drive to allow for a center divide with plantings and 10 ft sidewalk on one Side. 8. Improve pedestrian connection. between the pool facilities and Building A-1 9. Treatment of Kenilworth Drive runoff. 1,0. Permeable paving where allowable/feasible. 3 11. Incorporation of solar panels into building design.to maximum feasible extent: 12. Incorporation of grey/rainwater into irrigation system. T3. Skybridge at Highway 101. pedestrian overpass. 14. Oil/grease traps for post construction use. 1S, Incorporation of recycling receptacles 16. Commercial truck traffic to use Lindberg Lane only: 17: Inclusion of diffused parking and building lighting 18. Evergreens to be ;incorporated along. the freeway 19. Additional Air Quality mitigations/conditions, including: A) Cover all trucks'hauling soil, sand, loose material B) Limitation of areas to be disturbed on daily basis C) Installation of wheel washers for all trucks. D) Use of add-on control devices such as diesel oxidation catalysts or particulate filters E) CARB-certified: standards for heavy duty diesel engines 20. Public restroom at or near-Kenilworth entry plaza 21. Include traffic circles on East D Street Skybridge over Highway 101 pedestrian crossing. 22. Add bollards at east side of Swim Center pool for protection 23. If all land presently reserved for E: Washington interchange improvements is not needed for eventual. CalTrans project, require unused acreage to be open space rather than added to Project developable area. 24. Provide Skate Park amenities, presumably provided voluntarily by applicant, similar to Swim Center amenities. 25. Maximum idling time for all trucks to be limited to one minute.. 25. Earlier afternoon cessation of construction hours on SonomaLMarin Fair operating days, with potentially offsetting longer hours on other days, to mitigate any potential impact on Fair operations. Subsequent to the December 8 .hearing, staff has been evaluating the feasibility and applicability of these potential conditions to the extent feasible prior to possible discussion and consideration by Council. In some cases these potential conditions are already incorporate"d into recommended conditions of approval or in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (including # 1 and # 17). Conversely, some of these potential conditions may prove infeasible, may not. have a direct nexus to the Project,~or require land dedications, agreements, or easements with public and/or private parties which cannot. be .guaranteed at this time. (including #13, #21). With regard to commercial ;truck traffic to ruse .Lindberg Lane only, staff has determined that commercial trucks cannot be banned. from Johnson Drive. However, staff can recommend an adopted truck traffic route using Lindberg' Lane as primary access fo the Project. With regard to traffic circles on E. D Street, a more thorough evaluation of Project impacts on the intersections the Commission suggested for traffic circles would be needed to establish. the .required nexus with Project impacts, because these intersections were not considered adversely impacted by the Project and were not study intersections in the Project traffic study. If the Council desires this condition to be evaluated, it would likely require additional environmental .review to determine. if locating ttaff c circles at these intersections would have impacts not stud. ied in the EIR, such as encouraging more cross town traffic on E. D. St.. . 4 Note that potential incorporation of some.. additional conditions can be addressed. through project submittals of landscape and improvement. plan sets, building, permit. submittals, and related plans and' documents: 3. DISCUSSION: For further discussion and information, including :a complete project description and staff analysis; please refer to the Planning Commissionstaff report'included as an attachment to this report. 4. 1<+INANCIAL IMPACTS: This. is a cost., recovery project; the. applicant will pay for the cost of processing the application. The project is-also subject. to all City development fees and related mitigation fees. Pursuant to the Fiscal and Economic Impact Analysis (FEIA) reviewed by the City Council on April 6, 2009, the Project will generate a ..net fiscal sur-plus: of approximately $.1,039,084 annually to the City of Petaluma General Fund, minus :impacts to City services. Revenues .from: Development Impact Fees are expected to total $10,481,097 and the Petaluma Community Development Commission will receive $472,067 in annual Tax Increment revenues.. No redevelopment funds have. been spent to support the Project: M IVT RESOL~JTION OF THE CITY OF PETAI.UMA CITY COUNCIL CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL: IMPACT REPORT :FOR THE EAST' WASHINGTON PLACE PROJECT, PURSUANT TO T1FIE CALIFORNIA. ENVIRONIVIEN'I`AL 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 2"1080.4 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 21000 et seq. and CEQA Guidelines Section, 15.000 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',; and, WHEREAS; the Draft EIR relies on the EIR for the City of Petaluma General Plan 2025, certified by City Council ;Resolution 2008-OS8 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, 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 proj'eet and'to other interested persons and agencies and sought the comments of such..persons-and agencies; and, WI-IEI~AS, the Planning 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, ~ l+~ ~ 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, WHEREAS, at its pecember 8, 2009 meeting; the Planning Commission adopted a .Resolution recommending to the City. Council certification of the Final EIR, adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and, WHEREAS, certain Project impacts will remain significant and unavoidable, even after the application. of all feasible Project mitigation measures to lessen those impacts, including (a) AQ-1:Impact from exceeding. 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; (b) AQ-3; New emissions affecting long-term air quality, primarily from traff c emissions; and (c) TRA- 7: Unacceptable Levels of Service (LOS) at the intersections of Lakeville Street/Caulfield Lane, and Lakeville Street/D Street and on segments of U:S. Highway 101 from Petaluma Boulevard to Lakeville Highway, Lakeville Highway to Washington Street, and 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. aisted 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. significant impacts in the form of a Statement of Overriding Considerations, prior to any approval of the Project; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(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 WHEREFORE, BE IT R~SQLVEI) that, the City Council Hereby certifies the Final Environmental Impact Report and finds as follows: 1. 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 Revi"ew~Gudelines. 2. The .Final Environmental Impact Report was: presented to the City Council which reviewed and. considered it prior to making a decision on the Project. 3. The Final Environmental Impact Report .reflects the C•ity's independent judgment and analysis on the potential for environmental 'impacts of the Project. 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 ~H~a~ll, 11 English Street, :Petaluma, CA 94952. ~'~3 ;.i.. ATTACHMENT RESOLUTION OF THE ' CITY OF PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING ANI) REPORTING PROGRAM AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE EAST WASIIING'TON 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 Aet ("CEQA") Guidelines Section 1.5082; and, WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report. ("Draft EIR") was prepared for the Project in accordance with Public 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; and, WHEREAS, the Draft EIR relies on the EIR for the -City of Petaluma General Plan 2025, certified by City Council Resolution .2008--058 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, 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, WHEREAS,, the Planning Commission held a noticed public meeting and hearing on August 25, 2:009 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, ~~~ WHEREAS, the Planning Commission. held noticed. public meetings on November 24 and December 8, 2009, at which time it considered the Final EIR and accepted public comments; and, WHEREAS, at its December 8, 2009 meeting, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution recommending to the City Council certif cation of the Final EIR; and, WHEREAS, on _, 2009, by Resolution No. 2009-, the City Council certified the EIR for the Project and made CEQA findings required as to that certification; and WHEREAS, Section,21081(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 effect to a less than significant 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 21.081(a)(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 feasible Project mitigation measures to lessen those impacts, including (a) AQ-1:Impact from exceeding 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; (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/D Street and on segments of U.S. Highway 101 from Petaluma Boulevard to Lakeville Highway, Lakeville Highway to Washington Street, and 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, 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 can not 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 2 g ~.. WHEREAS, pursuant to 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 mitgaton'measures relied on in the findings are fully implemented; and WHEREAS, some mitigation measures identf ed 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 wil'1 require the relevant agencies to receive the funds and spend them appropriately. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 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 Projeet 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 i'gnificant and unavoidable effects of the Project contained in the attached Exhibit C. . 5: 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 jurisdicton:ofche 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 Determination pursuant to CEQA. .- -3 E~-II~IT A FINDINGS C®NCEI~NIN.G SIGNIFICAl~T IIVIPAC'I'S AIVI) lo!II'I'IG;A'I'ION 1VIEASiJRES 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 following findings are summarized rather then set forth in full. The text of the Draft 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-1: 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 City'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 .202.5 accounts for development of ,this scale of project. The current regional Clean. Aire 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. 4 ,~-N This would be a significant and unavoidable 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 PM10 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 PM~o so that impacts are less than significant are listed in Table 2-1 of 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 PM 10 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; in 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. I, 5 ,~-5 Mitigation AQ-4: Iii addition to Mitigation Measure~A"Q-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 tq 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 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-2: Proposed .development would eliminate 0.0.9 .acres of Corps regulated waters and the 0.23 acres of seasonal wetland. Mitigation BIO-2: Adequate measures shall be taken to mtgate~the loss of jurisdictional waters. An application shall be submined ;to the Corps and RWQGB 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 Post or disturbed- shall be mitigated on a "no-net-loss" basis in accordance with the Corps mitigation guidelines, either through on-site or off.-site replacement or through.particpation in purchase. of rnitigafon credits from an approved mitigation bank at a minimum 1:1 ratio or as otherwise required by the'Corps and R'WQCB. Finding: Changes or:alteratons have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which -avoid or substantially lessen the .significant environmental effectsas identif ed in the EIR. Impact CUL-1: Subsurface archaeological, paleontological materials and/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 significant impact. 6 . r 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 qualified. archeologist 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 buildings and.infrastructure and threaten public safety. Mitigation 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. ImRact 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 fhs 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 construction and equipment. Impact GEO-5: Corrosive soils degrade metallic structures placed below grade, including but not limited. to, foundation components. Impact GEO-6: Expansive soils could cause damage to foundations and pavements. 1NIiti~ations 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 Apri128 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. Impact HAZ-1: Demolition of the Carter Field Little League facilities may result in worker exposure to asbestos containing materials (AGMs) and the release of airborne asbestos. 7 ~~' 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 ofasbestos-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 the significant 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 on exposed construction materials. Mitigation HAZ-2: The Petaluma Fire Department and General 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-construction due to the intensification of urban land uses and increased imperviousness. Because a Storm 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-1: 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. 8 ~~. Finding: Changes or alterations,have been required in, or`incorporatedinto, 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 revegetation 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 approved 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 requred'in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or .substantially lessen the significant environmental: effect ~as identified in the EIR. .Impact NOI-l : Significant, temporary noise impacts could occur if the project does riot implement noise-reduction best management practices (B1VIPs) during the construction period. 9 ~: `~ Nliti~ation NOI-1: Projectdevelopers shall require by contract specifications that the construction BMPs be implemented by contractors to reduce construction noise levels as listed in Table 2-1, §NOI-1, 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-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: WeekdayAM, PMand,SaturdayPeak.Hour-Base Case +ProjectConditions ® East Washington- Street/ Southbound 101 Ramps ® Westbound East Washington Street approach left turn lane Weekday AM and Saturday Peak Hours - 2025 + Project Conditions ® East Washington Street/ Southbound 101 Ramps a Westbound East Washington Street approach left turn lanes Mitigation TRA-1: Implement the improvements to the East Washington Street/Southbound 101 Ramps intersection as listed in Table 2-1, §TRA-1a, 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 IO'1 pedestrian bridge. The pedestrian and bicycle route components require separation, or sufficient 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- 1, §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. 10 ~.~~~ 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 difficulty 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 intersection, 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 lane at this intersection). This would allow all vehicles on the intersection approaches to see and be seen, and would not backup .inbound through traffic on Johnson Drive. Omit the pedestrian crosswalk at this intersection and direct pedestrians to nearby intersections (also see Mitigafi'on 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 identified 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°fhe 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 ste'plan to include the measures as listed in Table 2-1, §TRA-4, of the FEIR 11 . ,~-I~ Finding: Changes or 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 TRA-5: Construction Traff c. The project would add construction traffic to East Washington Street, Lindberg Lane, Lakeville Street and other roadways serving the project site, 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) Nlitigatiori 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 pedestrian accessway shall be maintained and kept separate from construction vehicle activity, accomplished with fencing and signage directing ~6icyclists and pedestrians through t_he 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 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 land uses envisioned in the Petaluma General- Plan. There would .be significant impacts at the following two study intersections: • Lakeville Street / Caulfield Lane Lakeville Street / D Street There would also be signif cant: impacts, on the, following segments of U:S. Highway 101: ® Petaluma Blvd. to Lakeville .Hwy 12 ~- 0 ~. ® Lakeville Hwy to Washington: St. Washington St. to Redwood Hwy Finding: This impact cannot be feasibly mitigated and it will remain at a level of significant and unavoidable. However, this impact 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/Caulfield Land and Lakeville Street/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-1 O, Program A of the General Plan, which notes that a level of service lower than LOS D for motor vehicles may be deemed acceptable by the City in instances where potential vehicular 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 these Guiding Principles. The U.S. Highway 10,1 freeway segments were analyzed in 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 tls'roadway is under state and federal jurisdiction. 13 x--13 E~I~B>~'I' FINII~INGS -~2EGA~ING ALTEI~TA'TIVES CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15126.6(x) 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(x)(3). NO PR®JECT ALTERNATIV~~ 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 1`5,000 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 impacts to the Lakeville Street/Caulfield Lane and Lakeville StreetlD .Street intersections at the PM peak .hour to less than significant levels, it would lessen the degree of those impacts by an amount proportional to the reduction of 95,000 square feet of development, almost alLretail. The Mitigated Alternative would lessen but not avoid Impact AQ-1, 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 BAAMQD threshold, thereby reducing Impact AQ 3 to less than significant, in comparison to the Project, for which Impact AQ-3 .remains significant and unavoidable: Because the site is ~.1~ would still be developed, this alternative would have, similar "impacts related to construction or development activites'~such as hydrology or geology, and potential.,impacts to 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 38`0;00'0 square feet of_proposed development is not, in itself, a .failure to meet. Project objectives sufficient to snake the Mitigated Alternative infeasible. Nevertheless, the reduction 'in aize of 'the .Mitigated Alternative provides significantly less flexibility, variety, and capacity to accommodate a potential mix` of uses than is presented by the Project.: 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; compared to the proposed Project. Fewer ocal jobs would be created. Thee Mitigated, Alternative would generate. proportionally less 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 local retail opportunities, reducing excess traff c on Highway 101 .frgm outbound. shopping., Grips to other areas by Petaluma residents, all'e~iatng retail leakage, creating local jobs, and providing sales tax and property tax ncrement.revenue to the City. ALTERNATE iJSE ALTE'RNA'TIVE This alternative: is designed to include a combination of .retail/off ce and residential uses.. It includes 270,000 square feet of retail and 15,000 square. feet of office for a total of 285,0.00 square -feet of mixed-use development. However, similar to the: project concept previously analyzed in the; 2Q07 Draft EIR; this alternative includes aresidential component in the south and east of the cite. Residential development would consist of 225 housing units on 9 "acres.: Finding -Infeasible.. This alternative 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 quality, noise, and utilities. The incorp'oration' of'the_=residential comp©nent would increase vehicle traffic° trips in the AM and PM 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 15 -- a 5~ 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. 16 ~.~ EXI~IBI'T C S'TATEMEN'T' OF OVERRIl)IlyG CONSII)EI2ATI®NS I. Legal, basis and background Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 1.5093, the City. Council of the City of Petaluma adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts identified in the General Plan EIR as significant and unavoidable.. (Resolution 2008-084 N.C.S., May 8, 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 Ca1.App. 4th 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 Consde"rations is supported by substantial evidence set forth in the CEQA Findings andlor herein and/or in the record of proceedings. Many of the unavoidable enyironrnental effects identified 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 mitigated to acceptable levels, there are specific economic, social, environmental, land use, and other considerations that support approval of the Project: Signifcant and Unavoidable Impacts The following unavoidable signi_cant environmental cumulative impacts identified in the General. Plan EIR apply to the Project: ® 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 projecf would generate new emissions that would affect long-term air quality. A majority of the emissions generated by full build out of the project would be produced by traffic. 17 '1~ _ 0 Impact TRA-7: Increased motor vehicle traffic would re"s_ult in unacceptable level. of service (LOS): at study, intersections. Build out of the land. uses envisioned in the Petaluma General Plan would result in significant.impacts atitlie, following-two study intersections: ^ Lakeville Street./ Caulfield,Lane ^ Lakeville Street / East D Street , There would alsq be significant impacts at the following segments of U.S. Highway 101: ^ Petaluma Boulevard to Lakeville. Highway ^ Lakeville :Highway to Washington Street ^ 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 by incorporation into the Project ar°thoough 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 chose 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. Benefis of the. Pro.iect 1. The Project will contribute to the City's economy by providing both temporary and permanent jobs and a mixture. of both full-time and part-time permanent jobs. General-Plan. Policy 9-P-1'0 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, According. to the Fiscal anal Economic. Impact Analysis .(Bay Area, Economics, :January, 2009) ("FEIA") as=considered by the "City- Council on April 6, 200.9, which is incorporated herein by references 'the Project will provide approximately 388' 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; this 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 18 retail and ervice-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 pay development-irri~act fees that will fund. City services and facilities. According to the FEIA; the project. will generate $10,481,097 in development impact fees to the City. These fees will offset the Project'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 will be 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 significant. amount of revenue to address those. pressing infrastructure and related needs which .have the required nexus to the fees collected. 3. The Project will generate Petaluma Community Development Project Area (PCD Project Areal tax increment_ funds that are used to .fund' Petaluma Community Development Commission ,(PCDC) activities for the benefit of economic development and affordable housing_pro rg ams. The Project is located. within the PCD Project Area and will generate an estimated $472,000 annually in tax 'increment funds to the PCDC. No redevelopment funds have been committed to the Project. 4. 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 concerns 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 benef is to the City.. According to the FEIA, the Project is anticipated to generate approximately $119.2 million in sales per year, of which. 93 percent are anticipated to be taxable. Thus, the Project would generate $1,080;336 .n; sales. tax .revenue per year, annually, to the City's General Fund, based on long-term projections. In addition, the City is anticipated to receive $25,8.75 annually from projected. property tax revenues based on using current assessed land value combined with new development costs to determine value, as well as a one-time $9,548 . in projected property transfer tax rates, $51,011 in annual property tax in-lieu of Vehicle- License-Fees (VLF.) and fees from licenses and related project-generated revenue. The General Fund cost for the City to provide ongoing services to the Project would include $77,235 for :police, $37,407 for fire, $20,477 for public works and smaller amounts for ancillary public services; therefore, the net fiscal impact to the General Fund would amount to $1,039,084 annually. 19 ~,~ ~~ 5. The Project would significantly address the, long=term negative economic impact of retail leakage. Resolution 2008-189 N.C.S. requires analysis of retail market conditions and market. factors for projects, :and analysis of leakage of -sales to other communities in those market sectors. The FEIA 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, food 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. .According to the FEIA, the largest portion of this is in the' General Merchandise store category, with an estimated one-third capture of the estimated $91.1, million in annual sales leakage projected for 2011. Given the lack of competition in the electronics/appliances sector in Petaluma, capture •is estimated at 60 percent of the total .$25 million in ,leakage in this category. In the Other Retail store category, capture has .been estimated at one-third of the $61.5 million leakage projected for 201.1.- Capture of the $57.7 million annual leakage in the Food Store category, however, would be limited.. No capture is estimated for the home improvement or building supply sectors. While the Project could Kaye capture potential for retail uses within the Trade Area, these are projected. to be .insignificant compared to 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 long-term economic detriment to the City of Petaluma. 6. The Project will provide upgrades and new amenities to the Swim Center and Skate Park. General Plan Policy 6-P-13 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 traffic 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 new signage, as well as lighting and. landscaping that would significantly upgrade the appearance and function of the facility, and increase its attracfiveriess 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 20 ~~-~~ ..1~' Y connectivity with, enhanced pedestrian and bicycle. connectors to be constructed as part of the Projcct?s improvements. 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 to Public Resources Code, ~Secfion 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, -the City Council finds that -the specific economic, legal, social, technological or other beneftsthat the Project will produce,. as described herein, outweigh the remaining significant and unavoidable adverse enuronmentaL impacts ofthe Project and render. those impacts acceptable. The City Council further finds that. any one of the overriding ,considerations set forth herein is .sufficient to render the;above-described adverse :environmental' impacts acceptable. 21 -~' i A1TAC~ E IVT~ C RESOI;iJTI®N O.>H' THE CITY OE PETAd.LT1VIA CITY COiJNCIL APPROVING A VESTING TENTATIVE MAP EUR THE EAST WASHINGT,®NPLACE P~RO.DECT ASSESSOR'S PA~tCEL NiJMBERS 007-031'-001,.00.7-241-002, 007-251-001, 007-473-040 WHEREAS, the proposed Vesting Tentative Subdivision :Map, as conditioned, is consistent with the provisions of Title 20, Subdivisions, of the Petaluma Municipal Code (Subdivision Ordinance) and. the State Subdivision Map, and W>FIEREAS, the proposed subdivision,, together with provisions for its design. and improvements, is consistent with the City of Petaluma General Plan 2025- (General Plan); and WHEREAS, the proposed subdivision, together with provisions for its design and improvements, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare in that adequate public facilities exist or will be installed, including. roads,. sidewalks, water, sewer, storm drains, and other infrastructure; and WI~EREAS, the proposed subdivision. is consistent with the Petaluma Implementing Zoning Ordinance, because the proposed subdivision meets the. requirements of the Mixed Use - MZIIB zone in which it is located by proposing a mix of retail and office: uses, under the applicable definitions of Mixed Use in the Implementing Zoning Ordinance and General Plan policies relating to Mixed Use. in the Washington Core subarea; and WHEREAS, the site is physically suitable for the .density and the type of development proposed, and WHEREAS, the City's Planning Commission .held duly noticed public hearings to consider`the-proposed Vesting Tentative Map on November" 24, 2009 and. December 8, 2009; and W~IEREAS, on January 4; 201,0, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the proposed Vesting Tentative Map; and WHEREAS:; on January 4; 201 Q; the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2010-; certifying. the Environmental Impact Report prepared. for the Project. by the City as lead agency, in compliance .with.. fhe: California Environmental.. Quality Act' and the City of Petaluma Environmental Guidelines; and WHEREAS; on January 4; 2010, the City 'Council adopted Resolution No. 2010- , making findings regarding environmental impacts of 'the Project and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Project.. ~'~ N®W, THEREFORE; BE IT RESOLVED that the Petaluma City Council hereby approves the Vesting. Tentative Map for the East Washington-Place Project, located. at East Washington Street and. Highway 1'.0':1, APNs 0,07-031=001,.007-241-002,: 007-251-001, 007-473- 040, based on the. foregoing recitals.wliich are incorporated herein by reference as findings, and subject to the conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit A hereto. c ~~' EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL From Planning: Before issuance of any development permit, the applicant shall revise. the site plan or other first sheet. of. the office •and job site cgpi'es of the ;Buil'ding Permit. plans to list these Conditions of Approval and the Mitigation Measures. from the Mitigation Monitoring Program in the Final Environmental Impact Report" (FEI'R) as notes. 2. The plans submitted for building permit review shall. be in substantial compliance with the design review set date stamped November 17, 2009 and the full size plans dated July 6, 2009, unless: amended per City direction. 3. All Mitigation Measures adopted in conjunction with the FEIR (SCH NO. 2005052061) for the project are herein.incorporatedby reference as conditions of project approval. 4. Upon certification by the City Council. of`the FEIR, the applicant shall pay the .Notice of Determination fee- to the Planning Division. The check., shall be made payable to the County ..Clerk.: Planning staff will.. file the Notice of .Determination with the County Clerk's office within five (5) days of receiving Council approval. The State Department of Fish and: Game has eliminated the fee exemption for projects determined that have a de minimis effect on fish and wildlife and requires that an environmental filing fee be paid,. (as required under Fish and Game Code Section 711:4d) to the Sonoma County Clerk on or before the filing of the Notice of Determination (as of January 2009, the fee is $1,993, confact them at 944-5500 to confirm). Prior to building permit approval, the plans shall.. note the installation of high efficiency heating equipment (90% or higher heating/furnaces) and low NOx -water heaters (40 NOx or less) in compliance with policy 4-P-15D (reducing emissions). 6. Prior to: building or grading permit approval,. all plans shall note the following and all construction contracts. shall. include the "same requirements (or measures shown to be' equally effective, as approved by Planning), in compliance with General Plan Policy 4-P= 16: • • Maintain construction .equipment engines in good condition and in proper tune per manufacturer's .specification for the duration of construction; • Minimize .idling. time of construction..related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment; • Use alternative fuel construction equipment (i.e:, • compressed natural gas, liquid petroleum gas; and:unleaded gasoline); _ • Use add-on control devices such as diesel oxidation catalysts or particulate .filters; - C-3 Use diesel equipment that meets the ARB's'.2000 or newer certification standard for off-road heavy-duty diesel engines; Phase construction of the project; and Limitthc hours of operation of heavy duty equipment. Z. Prior to building or grading permit issuance, the applicant shall provide a Construction Phase Recycling Plan that would address the reuse arid. recycling of major waste materials (soil, vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal scraps, .cardboard, packing, etc., generated by any demolition activities and construction of the project, 'in compliance with General Plan Policy 2-P-122 for review by the planning staff 8. Plans submitted for building permit .shall include pre-wiring for. solar facilities for each of new structure subject to staff review and approval. The applicant shall also look into the feasibility ifpre-wiring for solar facilities for the existing. structures. 9. The project. shall obtain LEE~D certification. The proposed. project will be built in accordance with Green Building standards that would reduce energy-related GHG emissions by at least 20 percent from those that would' occur under current Title 24 Building Code requirements:. The applicant shall present these to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit. 10. Prior to issuance of a grading/ building permit, the applicant shall provide a lighting and photometrics plan for planning staff reviewing and approval. .Said lighting plan shall include exterior light locations and details of the proposed fixture type and the luminens. .All lighting shall be glare-free,: hooded and downcast in order to prevent glare. 11. The project shall be subject to. payment of all applicable development impact fees. Said fees are due at time of issuance of building permit at which time; other pertinent fees that may be applicable to the proposed project may be required. 12. All construction activities: shall be limited.to 7:00 a.m. to 6;:.0.0 p.m. Monday through Friday and interior work only between 9:00 a.m. and 5':00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction shall be prohibited on Sundays and all holidays recognized by the City of Petaluma, unless a permit ;is first secured from the City Manager (or his/her designee) for additional .hours. There will be no start up of machines or equipment prior to 7:30. a.m., Nlond'ay through Friday; no delivery of materials or equipment prior to 7:30 a.m. or past 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday; no servicing of equipment past 6;45 p.m., Monday through Friday. Plan submitted for City permit shall include the language above. 13. Signs are not approved as part of this project proposal. Signs require a sign permit. 14. In the event that archaeological remains are encountered during grading,. work shall be halted temporarily and. a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted for evaluation of the artifacts and to recommend future action. The. local Native American community shall also be notified and consulted in the event any archaeological remains are uncovered. C-~ 15. As recommended by the arborist the .final project. design shall incorporate appropriate tree protection procedures as part of the improvement plans. to provide tree protection consistent with General Plan policies acid all applicable City regulations. 16. Prior to issuance of bulding/grading permits the applicant shall submit the status' of the agreement between the. applicant and all, associated parties for the timing and relocation of the Carter Little League Fields and related activities.. In the event that this agreement has not been finalized by that time, the City shall document the status and make recommendations to the involved parties if warranted.. The City acknowledges it is not party to this agreement. 17. The applicant shall incorporate the following. Best Management Practices into the construction and improvement plans and clearly indicate. these provisions in the specifications. The construction contractor shall incorporate these measures into the required Erosion and Sediment Control Plan to limit fugitive dust and exhaust emissions during construction. i. Grading and construction equipment operated during construction.activitiesshafl be properly muffled and maintained to minimize emissions. Equipment shall be turned off when not in use. ii. Exposed soils shall be watered periodically during, construction, a minimum of twice daily. The frequency of watering shall be' increased if wind speeds exceed lymph. Only purchased. city water or reclaimed water shall be used for this purpose. Responsibility for watering shall include weekends and holidays when work is not in progress. iii. Construction sites. involving earthwork. shall. provide for a gravel pad area consisting of an impermeable liner and drain rock at the construction entrance to clean mud and debris from construction vehicles prior to entering the public roadways. Street urfaces in the vicinity of the: project shall be routinely swept and cleared of mud and dust.carried onto the street by construction vehicles. iv. During excavation activities, haul trucks used to transport soil shall utilize tarps or other similar covering devices to reduce dust emissions. v. Post-construction re-vegetation, repaving or soil stabilization of exposed soils shall be completed in a timely manner according to the approved Erosion and Sediment: 'Control Plan and verif ed by City inspectors prior to acceptance of improvements or issuance of a certificate of occupancy.. vi. Applicant shall designate a person with authority to require; increased watering to monitor the dust and erosion control program and provide name and phone number to the City of Petaluma prior to issuance of grading permit. 1.8. The applicant: shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its officials, boards, commissions, agents; officers-and employees. ("Indemnitees") from :any claim, action or proceeding against Indemnitees to attack, set aside, void or annul any of the approvals of the project to the maximum extent permitted by Government Code section 66477.9. To the- extent permitted by Government Code section 66477.9, the applicant's duty to defend, indemnify and hold harmless in accordance with this condition shall apply to any and all e-5 claims, actions or proceedings brought concerriirig the project; riot just: such claims, actions or proceedings brought within the. time period provided for in applicable :State and/or local statutes. The City shall promptly .notify the subdivider of any such claim, action or proceeding concerning the subdivision: The City shall... cooperate fully in the defense.. Nothing contained in this condition., shall prohibit the. City from participating in the defense of any claim, action, or proceeding; and if the City chooses to do so, applicant shall reimburse City for ,attorneys' fees and costs incurred by tfie City to the maximum extent permitted by Government Code. section 66477.9. From the Department of Public Works: Street and Frontage Improvements 19. Street and. frontage improvements shall be constructed as proposed on the application plans and according to City standards. Improvements ~ shall include but not be .limited to pavement, curb,_gutter, sidewalk, .traffic islands, traffic signals, traffic signs, pavement striping and markers, pedestrian ramps, bike lanes, street. fights; etc. 20. A 5-foot wide sidewalk shall be constructed on Kenilworth Drive, through the bus facility property to Lindberg Lane and shall be on the east side~of the street. 21. The minimum pavement section shall be 5-inches of asphalt .concrete (AC) over 15-inches of class 2 aggregate `base (AB) :for Johnson and Kenilworth Drive and. 6-inches of AC over 21-inches of class 2 AB for. East Washington Street. 22. "No Parking" signs shall be"placed. along Johnson and Kenilworth Drives. 23. Street lights. shall be 'installed.. along Johnson Drive .and Kenilworth Drive per City Standards. As ari option and at' the discretion of the City Engineer, the City may require LED street lights. 24. Traffic control plans shall be submitted and approved- prior to the start of street construction. 25 A transit stop shall be provided in: the vicinity of the existing pool facility that :allows for' convenient and, safe passenger .access. The f rial location shall be determined by the City Engineer aril Transit Division Manager. Grading 26. Grading, excavation and' compaction shall conform to the soils~report prepared for this site. 27. All above-.ground, or below-ground structures (buildings, .fences, pipes, conduits, etc.) that are not nece"ssary or-.:not longer needed, shall be removed. e'~ 28. Erosion control plans, storm water pollution prevention plans, notice of :intent .and notice of termination shall be provided. Water and Sanitary Sewer Systems 29. The on-site sanitary sewer system. shall be privately owned and maintained. 30. The sanitary sewer in Kenilworth Drive shall be public and extend. to Lindberg Lane within the Kenilworth Drive and not.. continue through the bus facility .property. 31. The water system shall be .constructed as proposed on the application plan, according to City standards and as directed by the Water Resources and Conservation Department (WR&C). 32. The water system shall be capable of delivering a continuous fire flow as designated by the fire marshal. Provide final fire flow calculations. Storm Drain System 33. The on-site storm drain system shall be privately owned-.and maintained with the exception of any existing City pubhc systems. 34. The peak storm water flow from the project .site shall be limited to the pre-development condition as indicated in the hydrology/hydraulic study provided by the project engineer. 35. The storm drain detention and treatment system sha1,I meet the requirements of the City General Plan polices, City standards and NPDES, phase II storm water regulations, attachment 4. 36. The storm drain system within Kenilworth and Johnson Drive shall be public. Minimum storm drain pipe diameter is 15-inches. 37. The storm drain in Johnson; Drive shall be capable of containing a 10-year storm without standing water in the street. Calculations and/or `improvement plans to support this. requirement.shall: be submitted. 38. The storm drain system shall be reviewed and approved by the Sonoma County Water Agency. Final Map 39. Dedicate proposed public street right-of-way, access easements, utility easements, etc., as proposed on the final map and necessary for the construction of improvements. C-1 4'0. A 10-foot wide public utility easement (PUE) shall be dedicated adjacent to and along the entire public street right-of way. Any reduction. or elimination of this requirement shall be confirmed in a letter from the applicable utility agencies. 41. Documentation shall be -submitted indicating easements have been dedicated for the public access, public utilities and construction of street acid utility improvements for Johnson Drive and Kenilworth Drive through the bus facility property. 42. Define on the .map or by separate document, access and. parking easements between proposed parcels. 43. Vacate, abandon or quitclaim any .existing easements that are unnecessary, outdated or not needed as. identified on the tentative map and listed in the title report. The process of removing existing easements shall be completed prior to recording the final map or issuance of a building permit Miscellaneous 44. Existing overhead utilities along the street frontages and/or traversing the site shall be placed underground. 45. All shared private facilities,, :including but not limited to water lines, sanitary sewer lines, storm drains, access, parking; etc., shall require maintenance agreements. Agreements shall be approved by the City prior to recordation. 46. Maintenance of the storm. drain detention and water quality treatment system shall be the responsibility of the property owner(s). A financial and .operation plan for maintenance, inspection, reporting, etc., shall ,be established. Documents shall be reviewed and approved by the City~prior to recordation. 47. Mitigation measures identified in the adopted final EIR; set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, shall be considered part of these conditions of approval. 48. A final rnap and .improvement plans -shall be prepared according to the, latest City policies. Joint trench plans shall be submitted with .improvement plans. Prior to final map _ recordation, the applicable public improvement agreement; bonds and insurance shall be submitted reviewed and approved. Final map; improvement plan and technical review fees shall be required at application submittal. The final map shall be scanned after recordation and submitted to the City Engineer.. Improvement plan. record drawings shall be scanned and submitted to the City Engineer prior to release of the performance bond. 49. The applicant shall pay a fair share contribution for installation of a future traffic signal at the intersection of Lakeville Street and Lindberg Lane. The contribution shall be based on ~~ " peak hour, future plus project trips, versus general plan trips on .Lindberg Lane. The contribution shall be paid in:;full -prior to issuance of the first; certf Cate of occupancy. 50. Fznal sight distance calculations shall be' provided. for the Johnson Drive/Swim Center/Fairgrounds intersection with the public improvement. plan application and are subject to the approval of the City Engineer. All landscaping, .fencing, etc. shall be designed and installed to preserve adequate sight.distarice per City requirements. 51. The final configuration of the Johnson Drive/Swim Center/Fairgrounds, including the need for and location, of stop signs .and. stop legends shall. be determined during review of the . public improvement plans and shall be subject to the approval bf the City Engineer. 52:. The developer shall install. an .enhanced crosswalk with in ground lighting and flashing signs, on the easterly leg of the Johnson Drive/S'wim Center/Fargrounds intersection. The enhanced crosswalk shall be shown on the Johnson -Drive public improvement plans. The final design is subject to the,approval.ofthc City Engineer. From the Fire Marshal 53. The "aisle" .in front 9f ,all. he buildings along the eastern portion of the project site (Buildings Al through S 10) should be widened from 28 feet to 30 feet to allow for reasonable FDC, PIV,arid' ladder truck access by fire apparatus. We may require an additional staging area for emergency vehicle access. 54. The turn radii at the intersections of streets and onsite driveways (roads) within the project site will need to be adj usted~ to meet PFD ladder truck turning radius standards. S5. Road's and "aisles"`may need to be posted with "No Parking -Fire Lane" signs and "red- curbirig" will be required where appropriate. The placement of the signs and .red-curbing must be~ coordinated with the Fire Marshal's office.. 56. Fire hydrants. will .need to be added along Johnson Drive 'and other areas of the project. Placement of the fire. hydrants will require verification and coordination with the .Fire _ •Marshal's: office' prior to submittal of the improvement' plants. 57. All commercial building/s (or portions thereof) shall be protected by an automatic fire sprinkler. system as required by the City of Petaluma Municipal Code and shall conform to NFPA 13 requirements. The f re sprinkler system, shall. be provided. with central station alarm .system designed in accordance with NFPA 72. A local alarm shall be ,provided on the exterior of the building ..AND a normally occupied location in the interior of the building. All systems require 3 set of plans to be submitted. to the. Fire IVlarshal''s office for review and approval;.. 58. Be advised, all .fire hydrants must. be installed, pressure tested, flushed, and fully operational prior to anycombustib`le materials being brought on site. C- From Water Resources 59. The developer shall dedicate to the City a 50' x 50' future well site about 250 feet south of building~M6 subject to review and approval of the Public Works Director. The parcel shall have an all weather 15' wide access and utility. easement connecting the parcel to Kenilworth Drive with a driveway cut. Stub in a 10" water main from Kenilworth Drive to the Parcel. Stub in a 480 volt three phase 400 amp electric service to the parcel. 60. Replace all existing on-site sewer main. Extend the new sewer main to connect to Lindberg in Kenilworth Drive. 61. The existing .sewer main on the Bus Barn property needs to be cut off and revert to a private lateral with a new cleanout install on the upstream end. 62. At the point that the sewer :and' storm drain mains. enters the site from Kenilworth Drive (NW corner building ,M6) they shall become privately maintained, and shall be subject to appropriate maintenance agreement, if needed, satisfactory to the City. 63. The 12" water main loop fronting Highway 101 shall be fitted with DDCV assemblies at both ends and be privately maintained. 64. Locate all irrigation master meters along Kenilworth Drive. 65. Extend a future 6" reclaimed water main between Lindberg and East Washington Street. Stub services to boxes located 5 feet from each irrigation master meter. 66. The development shall connect to and cost share a portion of the new 18" water main to be installed on Washington Street. 67. .Provide two more combination fire /domestic water services to buildings S 1 and S2. 68. Separate gate valves of clusters per City Standards. 69,. Comply with the City landscape ordinance. 70: Abandon old water and. sewer connections to the site. 71. Relocate as needed utilities along the widened area of East. Washington Street. C- ~~ From the Parks and Recreation Department Z2. A landscape improvement plan shall be submitted for review by City staff and the Department of .Parks. and Recreation. The plan shall be' approved prior to issuance of improvement plans for Johnson Drive and shall include the following: a. Tiered landscape elements at sensitive locations where asphalt and..parking are proposed iri close vicinity to the pools as well as 'the separation between swim center and skate park functions. These elements shall .include a combination of trees, shrubs and plantings that will serge. both as attractive landscape elements and as components to address potential impacts to the pools and active uses due to noise and emissions from vehicles. b. Proposed trees .shall be a. minimum fifteen (15) ,gallon size, unless otherwise specified. Smaller five (5) gallon size may be considered in areas not subject to high pedestrian access or based on site specific and design purposes and larger (24" box sized) and installed to City planting and staking standards; trees may be required in highly visible areas.; all, shrubs shall be five gallon size. All planted areas not improved with. a lawn or other groundcover material. shall be protected with a two- inch deep organic mulch as a temporary measure until the ground cover is established. c. All plant material shall be served by aCity=approved .automatic underground irrigation system. d. Linear root barrier systems shall be noted for trees near public streets or walkways as needed, subject to staff review and approval. e: -Parking areas and parking stall details, including. stall dimensions and location of Handicapped parking. Location off all bicycle racks. Provisions for both indoor and outdoor racks shall be ,presented. g. Location, .height;. and size of all proposed fencing; including post heights. Note that perimeter fencing should be of an open picket or wrought-iron design for visibility: h. Location, dimension, and installation details of solar panels and pool covers. i. .Location and construction details of relocated concession area. A lighting and photometric plan including a1L .exterior light locations and details of the proposed fixture type and lumens. All lighting shall be glare-free, hooded, and downcast in order to prevent glare. C-~ k. Proposed.. gnage; including materials,.. sizes, dimensions, and location. Note, that signs will be .subject to a S=gn Permit and all. applicable provisions as stated in Chapter 20 of the Implemcnting.Zonirig Ordinance. 1. At the swim center entry; the curb areas- immediately southeast and southwest of the cross walk shall be identified as no parking; pick-up and drop-off only; including buses. m. Landscape, signage; and:. potential secondary entry details for the corner of Kenilworth and Johnson. This should include double gates at the fence. n. Landscape screening and buffers at all parking areas and vehicle access points. o. At the northwest corner of the pool site, at the two planting areas. connected by the crosswalk, landscaping shall be designed and utilized ~as wind screening. This can be accomplished by non-vegetative means as well, and is subject to review and approval of Parks and Recreation. 73. Building Permits shall be :obtained where required, 'including, but not limited to, solar panels, fences over 6' in height, irrigation meters, and,related structures. 74. The Petaluma Swim Center shall be included on all site. sigiage, and specifically included on the northwest"B" sign or reimbursement shall be required for any sign placement that is on pool property. 75. The swim season: can. generally be identified as April through October. It:is important that there be no interruptions to the. season. Construction of proposed improvements to Johnson Drive and the :Swim Center` shall be conducted between September 15 and ..April 15 to avoid construction .impacts and potential interruptions to center operations. Should this schedule prove. infeasible, limited construction may occur during. the swim. season per consultation and written approval from the Director of Parks and Recreation. If interruptions are unavoidable, it is required that they be as early or late in the season as possible; andthatthe schedule identify such 6-8 weeks in advance. Monetary damages will be: assigned during periods of closure. From the Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PBAC) Note: All PBAC conditions of -approval shall be addressed on the public improvement and building permit plans. All required amenities ,shall be installed; constructed, .inspected and accepted prior to acceptance of the public irriprovements; release. of any surety or issuance of any certificates of occupancy, The exact final .locations of the required amenities shall be subject to the approval by the: City of Petaluma. -1~-- Bicycle Parking 76. Building S'8 shall require a bike rack. to accommodate at least 4 bikes, to accommodate bike/transit cotnmuters using the transit mall. 77. The number of bicycle parking. spaces provided shall be in accordance with the provisions as stated in Chapter l T.090 of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance. 78. .Short-term bicycle parking shall be installed. as close to the. main entrance of each store/office as possible. Also consider placing racks. under awnings/overhangs where possible to give .extra protection from the weather. 79. Bicycle racks shall keep bikes upright by supporting the frame in two places, allow the frame and one or both wheels to be secured with. a U-lock,. be -securely anchored or heavy enough that. it cannot: be stolen, and durable enough to resist being. cuf or vandalized. Please refer to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan for further design recommendations. Class I Shared Use Pathways 80. A Class I shared off-street. pathway shall be installed along. the south side of East Washington Street from Johnson/Ellis Streets to the southbound 101 on-ramp crosswalk. . Class II Bicycle Facilities 81. A Class II bike facility shall be installed along the .northern side of building S7 and S8 to Kenilworth Drive. This Class IT shall be given surface treatment. to enhance visibility and shall be separated from motor vehicle traffic. Intersection Improvements 82. Traffic calming, elements shall be placed in front of the plaza main entrance, and at both "pinch points" including; (1) bollards (ADA-compliant in their distance from each other) at the base of the overcrossng; (2) raised/marked paving; (3) stop. signs and raised speed- bumps at the 101 over-crossing: meets the delivery road and (4) stop signs for vehicles Beading North and South ~/S) along the retail frontage road, where it meets the pedestrian plaza. 83. The. two crosswalks along the .route of the bike/pedestrian overpass. near buildings S9 and S 10 shall be raised crosswalks with in-pavement flashing lights triggered by motion detectors (instead 'of pushbuttons). Additionally, the applicant shall install in-ground pavement lighting with pole mounted flashers . (trigger by button or motion) at the following locations: a. Kenilworth Drive and East Washington Street. b. Johnson Drive crossing at the Fairgrounds/swim center access point. c. Kenilworth Drive and Johnson Drive. d. Kenilworth Drive and the project entrance at building S5. C-i3 e. Kenilworth, Drive pedestrian crossing at the southern end of the project. 84. Left turn traffic lanes shall have bicycle sensitive loop detectors with stencils showing the best location to place bicycle wheels to trip the detector. Through Travel 85. The applicant shall install, two-way stop signs. at the- frontage road .and the intersection of buildings S9 and S 10. Bollards shall be installed. at the base of the over-crossing. 86. A clearly marked bicycle throughway from the overpass/parking lot entrance to Kenilworth Road will be necessary for c`omrnuter bicycle through-traffic. 87. The applicant- shall install.. a pedestrian route. leading. from the vicinity of the East Washington Street/SB 101 on-ramp to Building A1. Pedestrian-friendly Infrastructure 88. The parking areas shall feature .raised and marked walkways for access to major site tenants, including buildings A1, 1V13-5, and M6. These pathways must have a minimum clearance width of six (6) .feet between parked cars to allow movement of shoppers with carts and pedestrians/strollers. 89. The applicant shall install raised/colored pavement along the frontage road by the retail stores at the intersection-with the pedestrian mall. .Signs 90. The applicant shall. install way finding signage before the intersection of Johnson & Ellis at East Washington Street, and on Kenilworth Drive, to direct bicycle traffic to use the pedestrian overpass over US. 1.01 and discourage use of East Washington Street. 91. The applicant shall install necessary signage on East Washington Street west of Johnson Drive, informing cyclists and pedestrians to use. Glass I shared facility along the aquatics center and project frontage. 92. North of Building A1, the applicant shall .install signs. indicating "employee and truck delivery passage only" to prevent public traffic from .going to the west side of retail buildings. 93. The applicant shall install 'signage at the rear of project alerting thru-truck traffic to pedestrians bicyclists using°the Hwy 101 over crossing. 94. The applicant shall. install warning.signs along the ped/bike corridor between Buildings S9 and S 10 to alert pegs/bikes to upcoming motorist traffic. ~'~~ 95. The applicant shall `install information and.. directional sigriage at the intersection of ,Johnson and Kenilworth (such as the corrugated sign.-type used downtown) directing vehicles along Johnson to reach Buildings M1-M6. The, signs shall be located on private property, outside the public .right of way. Glare-free Lighting 96. Lighting shall be installed guiding the way to and near exterior-bike rack/locker locations. 97. All exterior lighting shall provide a "soft wash" of light. against the wall and shall be . hooded and .directed: downward. with no direct glare into 'bicyclistslpeds eyes and shall conform to cify standards. Employee Showers/Lockers/Amenities- 98. Employee showers and lockers shall be required for retail ,spaces over 1.0,000 .square feet in accordance with the policies. and provisions of the Bicycle and. Pedestrian Plan. Benches & Drinking Fountains 99. The applicant shall be responsible for installing water fountains between Buildings S9 and S 10, and between Buildings SS and S8. Incentives to Walk/Bicycle/Transit to Work 100. The applicant shall be encouraged to provide a document to 'the city naming a designated "transportation coordinator" describing specific incentives for employees to walk, bicycle or to .take transit, thereby encouraging alternatives to driving cars to this site: Examples include lending-bicycles for short errands, monetary or other rewards for not driving, discounts .for bicycling, formation of groups of employees who, pledge to bicycle, walk, carpool or ride transit at least once a week, etc. Applicant shall comply with Municipal Code. Chapter 11.90. ~=~5 !6 .. I ENT CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA STAFF REPORT Community.Deuelopment Department; Planning Division; I LEnglish Street, Petaluma, CA 94952 (707) 778-4301 Fax (707) 778-4498 E-mail: planning@cipetaluma.ca.us DATE: TO: PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: SUBJECT: November 24, 2009 Planning Commission Derek Farmer, Senior Planner Geoff Bradley, Planning Manager EAST WASHINGTON PLACE DEVELOPMENT East Washington Street and Highway 101 AGENDA ITEM NO. 2 Environmental Considerations: Staff Recommends the Planning Commission recommend adequacy .of the -Final Environmental Impact Report to the City Council based upon the following: 1. The Final Environmental Impact Report has been completed in compliance with CEQA. 2. The Final Environmental Impact Report reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis. Project Considerations: Staff Recommends the Planning Commission: 1. Forward a recommendation of approval of the Vesting Tentative Map based on attached Findings: and subject. to Conditions of Approval. 2. Undertake Site Plan and Architectural Review (Design .Review), pending final action on project EIR and Vesting Tentative Map by City Council. -~ East Washington Place Page 1 L ~~®~E~~ ~~Dll~llfl~9~Yl Project: Project File No. 04-GPA-0681 East Washington Place Mixed-Use Development East Washington Street and Highway ..101 APNs,007-031-001, 007-241=002,.007-2'51-001, 007-473-040 Project Planner: Derek Farmer .Project Applicant: Regency Centers Property ®wners: .Regency Petaluma, LLA Nearest Cross Street to Project Site:. Kenilworth 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 the property include ball fields, which will be relocated. The topography is relatively flat, with a one .to fire 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 Use: Development of approximately 364,000 gross square feet of commercial retail and 1.6,000 square feet of office uses. Zoning: MU1B: Mixed-Use 1B General Plan Land Use: Mixed-Use Subsequent Actions after Planning .Commission Review: ® City Council certification of. the Final EIR m City Council action on the Vesting Tentative Map ® Final action by Planning Commission on Site Plan and Architectural Review. ~ACKGR®dlND The applicant, Regency Petaluma, LLA, purchased the 33.74-acre project. site in May 2004 with the intention of developing amixed-use community. The applicant. worked with the Petaluma School District to relocate Kenilworth Junior High School from. the project site near U.S. 101 to its present location, at 800 Riesling Road. The new school opened- for operations in September 2005; meanwhile, the applicant completed the asbestos and lead-based paint abatement process and subsequentdemolition of the former school buildings at the project site. ~a' East Washington Place Page 2 The applicant. entered into a partnership with a restdental builder to construct up to 300,000 square feet of retail uses and 22:7 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, 2007. The EIR was never certified. The EIR identified potential impacts to the .residential uses from noise, air quality, and related factors, and a revised project was: submitted that did;riot include any, residential uses. During this time, the City of Petaluma was in the process of preparing, its General Plan 2025, which was adopted in May 2008. The land use designation for the- site became Mixed-Use, and the Implementing Zoning Ordinance was updated to reflect Phis use. A revised Environmental Impact Report (EIR) began with a Notice of Preparation in November 2008. The Draft EIR was released for review from July 16 to September 14, 2009,.. including public hearings before the Planning Commission and City~.Council (discussed'ingreater detail below). Meanwhile, per the requirements of Resolution No. 2008=1$9 N.C.S., a Fiscal and Economic Impact Analysis (FEIA) was prepared. by the firm Bay Area Economic (BAE). This analysis was considered and discussed by the City Council at a public hearing on Apri16, 2009. ~~t®JEC4 ~ESCitIP'TIOId The Current Site and Surrounding Uses Most of the project site is currently vacant. Existing uses include the Carter Little League Fields, which will be relocated by the school district. The topography of the site is relatively flat, and grown with seasonal grasses and low shrubs. The site contains large trees of varying health and species, mostly located nearer the U:S. 101 right-of--way frontage. .Seasonal wetlands occupy a portion of the site adjacent. to the .little league fields; they receive irrigation runoff from the ball fields in the dry months and .are .seasonally wet in the winter months. The Sonoma-Marin Fairgrounds is located adjacent.. to the western project boundary across Kenilworth Drive. The fairgrounds hosts the annual Sonoma-Marin Fair but also provide a variety of daily and seasonal uses, including the Petaluma Speedway. The Petaluma Swim Center and. Skate Park are located to the northwest across Kenilworth and Johnson Drives, while the Petaluma School District bus facility and office are located to the southwest across Kenilworth near Lindberg Lane. -East Washington Street to the north has a mixture of commercial uses, while Lindberg Lane to the south is primarily light industrial. More than half the project frontage is adjacent to the right-of--way for U.S. 101 to the east/southeast. Residential uses extend from this freeway to the east. Proposed Site Design and Project Uses The applicant has applied for a Vesting Tentative Map and Site Plan and Architectural Review to subdivide the approximately 33.74-acre property into six .lots to develop the site into amixed-use ~3 East Washington Place Page 3 community called East.Washington Place. The project would consist of approximately 364,000 square feet of retail uses; including a 139,000 square foot Target store, and 16;000 square feet of office space. The proposed Target store would be located along a northwesterly portion of the property with additional major retail- tenants positioned along the freeway to the northeast. The second major anchor tenant, at this time unidentified, would occupy a proposed 42,000 square- foot building anchoring the southeasterly corner across the street from the bus facility. The central portion of the site would feature smaller retail stores occupying buildings ranging from approximately 6,0.00 to 9;000 square feet. These buildings would anchor the central pedestrian corridor of the site and would highlight an entry plaza facing Kenilworth Drive and the fairgrounds complex across the street. Two vertically mixed building. would occupy the northwestern corner of the site across the swim center on either side of an entry plaza facing the corner of East Washington Street and Kenilworth Drive. The buildings would contain ground-floor retail and upper-floor offices. These offices would constitute the entire office portion of the project. 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 its 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. Site Amenities Open spaces features, including. nine plaza areas, would be :designed as pedestrian gathering areas with outdoor seating, art features, and landscaping, and would total approximately 44,000 square feet of space. In addition to providing aesthetic features . at the plaza locations, landscaping would be incorporated as shade with trees for pedestrians, provide aesthetic breaks in the parking areas, and identify primary circulation pathways.. Landscape features and overall design of amenities will be a central component of the site design application. Parking and Loading The project as currently proposed would be served by 1,514 parking spaces in stalls averaging 9- feet in width for standards stalls, and $-feet in width for- compact stalls.. Reserved parking for electric vehicles. would be provided in selected areas throughout the parking lot. The parking would be at-grade; open .air, and would be divided roughly in half between the parking area in front of the proposed target store, and the parking area in front of the sub-anchor stores. The proposal provides off-..street loading facilities consistent with the applicable zoning requirements. ~~ East Washington Place Page 4 .Circulation The project would include anurnber of street and overall circulation improvements'to and around the site while accommodating the area for the U.S. 101./East Washington Street interchange improvement project due to begin construction in Fall 2010. Primary access to the project .from East Washington Street would utilize a reconstructed Johnson :Drive, while secondary access would utilize Kenilworth Drive (access to Kenilworth would be right-turn in, right-turn out only). An improved Kenilworth Drive would also provide. access to and from the site at several locations. Lindberg Lane would .also provide access .from the southerly location. Four primary driveways- providing direct automobile access to .the site would be located along Kenilworth Drive; the intersection of Kenilworth and Johnson would focus traffic primarily to the proposed Target store and several adjoining tenants. 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/El~lis Street intersection; an expanded Johnson Drive :that would alsq provide access to the swim center/skate park and the fairgrounds; sidewalks along the north: and south aides 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 the fairgrounds site. The .new road configurations would clarify the existing vehicle circulation and parking layout around the swim center and provide better separation between pedestrians and vehicles by providing continuous sidewalks. Additional detailed descriptions' of the proposed improvements to Johnson Drive, Kenilworth Drive, and East Washington. Street are found in Section 4.13 of the project EIR, and are designed to mitigate potential traffic impac"t_s due to increased trips from the proposed project on the local road. network. Truck access servicing the project would be routed to the rear of the primary retail tenants lined up along the U.S. 101 . frontage :from the northerly access points of the project. The truck circulation is designed to separate: truck traffic from customer trip traffic and to concentrate loading and unloading of -goods to the :internal warehousing and service areas normally located in the back of stores. In addition, Caltrans has planned improvements to the southbound: on-ramp. onto U.S. 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 U.S. 101 could. be increased by approximately .13.,00;0 square feet. Therefore, the overall square-footage of the ;project build.. out has been considered in the project for sake of overall analysis, although the- current development plans do 'not. It. should be noted that the 13,000 square feet. between current plans and project build out are all retail. As mentioned above, construction is scheduled to begin in Fall of 2010. ~-5 East Washington Place Page 5 Pedestrian and Bicycle Amenities The site has been designed for an extensive network of pedestrian and bicycle paths to serve the internal project- areas and provide connectors to surrounding neighborhoods. Pedestrian walkways would include crosswalks with enhanced pavers and ADA-accessible ramps. The central corridor of the project has been. designed to maximize-and promote pedestrian usage with multiple plazas and pedestrian walkways linking the project frontage on Kenilworth to the larger anchor tenants to the rear of the site; and finally to the pedestrian overpass beyond. Pedestrian connections to adjacent streets would. be provided. by 5-foor-wide sidewalks per City code on both sides of Kenilworth Drive, the north side of Johnson Drive, and the south side of East Washington Street, with landscaping along these corridors for definition, and aesthetics, and eventual shade. The existing pedestrian U.S. 101 overpass would remain and would be integrated into the project for maximum. usage and visibility as well as provide a direct pedestrian link for the neighborhoods across the freeway. Bicycle lanes have. been proposed both throughout the project. site and. as connectors to bicycle lanes along the project frontages and City bicycle path networks beyond. Bicycle lanes would be added along East Washington Street and along Kenilworth Drive and the portion of Johnson Drive between Kenilworth and East: Washington. Facilities for bicycle parking and locking facilities would be located 'throughout the project site. As proposed, a total of 126 bicycle parking spaces would be available: 5~~~~ 'AG~Af~YSB~ C®NS9STENCY ~YTFO' AD®PYE® PLANS AN® ®ItDBNA~lICES Consistency with the General Plan 2025 The General Plan land use designation for the project site is: Mixed-Use. The definition and intent of Mixed Use is as follows: This classification requires a robust combination of uses, including retail, residential, service commercial, and/or .offices. .Development is oriented toward the pedestrian, with parking provided, to the extent possible, in larger common areas or garages: Maximum FAR including both. residential and non-residential uses is 2: S, and maximum residential density is 30 DU/AC. General Plan 2025 policies and goals :applicable to the project 'and.. consistency findings for them are located within the 'EIR and discussed in each environmental area {i.e.: Traffic, Noise, Public Utilities, etc.). The project 'site lies within the Washington Core Planning Subarea. The General Plan specifically mentions the. project site is in its definition, of the subarea. A representation of ^+D East Washington Place Page 6 General Plan land use policies and programs applicable to the project site within the context of its planning subarea are= as .follows: 1-P-6: Encourage .mixed-use development, which include opportunities for increased transit access. The proposed project is a mixed-use project and .new transit facilities will be .incorporated into the site design. The project would provide direct transit access at or near the project frontage and paratransit access at several locations within the project for easy access for handicapped, disabled, special needs, eto. 2-P-22: Encourage development with active ground level uses; plazas and open spaces, while allowing residential and commercial uses at upper floors: The project proposes this mix.of uses. Residential uses are not incorporated for reasons discussed below: 2-P-23: Facilitate development patterns that provide an urban edge along East Washington Street, providing visual continuity and cohesiveness, and increased safety: The proposed project incorporates plazas and urban design features along East Washington Street, and pedestrian and bicycle access that enhances safety along this corridor. 2-P-23D: Ensure that development at the old Kenilworth Jr. High school site and any future redevelopment of the Fairgrounds: property maintains a public, pedestrian, and active face along East Washington Street, and provides civic and ceremonial spaces with links to the Library and other uses. See response above. In addition, the proposed project would provide public plaza and pedestrian and bicycle corridors that directly :interface with the fairgrounds property in the center of project fronting Kenilworth Drive and connects them with the overpass to provide inter-community linkage with neighborhoods to east. side of U.S. 101. 2-P-76: Develop .the area with a diverse range of commercial and residential uses with intensity and character appropriate to a central urban neighborhood.• The project proposed a mix of commercial retail and office uses that will serve both the regional area as awhole and also include smaller neighborhood retail outlets and offices. Residential uses are not included for reasons discussed below. The intensity of use is within the floor-area ratio as proscribed. in. the ;zoning ordinance, and the site will feature plazas, landscaping, and bicycle and pedestrian trails -that will connect the project with the surrounding neighborhood as well as the neighborhood across US. 101. 2-P-77: Capitalize on opportunities to provide Regional and Community Commercial facilities at the old Kenilworth, se'hool~site; ~ivhile integrating new development with the intended scale and character for East Washington Street. ~~~ East Washington Place Page 7 As mentioned above, the .;project would include- both ~ regional and community commercial facilities as represented by' the- proposed anchor tenants and smaller-sized community-serving tenants. The development along East Washington.. Street will represent neighborhood scale commercial facilities as well as plazas and pedestrian%bicycle facilities for an attractive frontage along this major arterial. 2-P-81: Permit a range of large and small-sized retail and 'off ce as well as residential uses on the former Kenilworth School site, while ensuring that,the development: Presents an urban/pedestrian. face on Washington Street; with parking tucked behind buildings. Incorporates a plaza or other civic open space Provides adequate open -space to meet the needs of residents: As mentioned above, the project would include a range of large-,and small-sized retail spaces, ranging from a 139,000 square-foot target store to several clusters of smaller neighborhood serving businesses fronting along East Washington Street; and Kenilworth Drive. Neighborhood- serving office uses would be proposed at the cluster facing East.. Washington Street, and residential has been omitted. based. on discussion below. The project presents an urban face along East Washington with an open plaza surrounded by landscaping and entry signage framed by stores and offices appropriately sized for the street frontage. In addition, parking areas will be set back from East Washington by these open space and retail/office uses. 2-P-86: Provide enhanced facilities to encourage improved pedestrian and bicycle mobility along East Washington Street and EastD Street, such as: - Enhancing the existing pedestrian overcrossing of Highway I Ql. - Improving and expanding connections to the' Lynch; Creek trail system - Improve pedestrian and bicycle. facilities on the East Washington Street overpass. The project proposed pedestrian and bicycle paths will connect- with this overcrossing and transform it into a central project gateway, accessible to neighborhoods that would otherwise be largely cutoff from the freeway. 'Bicycle paths and sidewalks °are,proposed or the south frontage of East Washington Street. The project site is not. within the. Airport .Influence Area for -Petaluma Municipal Airport The project site is not within the boundary of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan (CPSP). The project is within the Petaluma Community Development Commission Redevelopment Area. Implementing Zoning Ordinance Consistency The project site is zoned 1VL[J1$: Mixed-Use, 1B. The City of Petaluma's Implementing Zoning Ordinance defines this zone as''follows: ~~~ East Washington Place Page 8 The MUI zone. is applied to areas` intended for pedestrian-oriented development, mixed-use development with groundfloor retail or office uses adjacent to the Downtown. Core, :and in other areas of the City where existing auto-oriented commercial uses are intended for improvement into pedestrian=:oriented mixed-use development: The MUI zone is consistent with and implements the Mixed-use land use classification of the- General Plan, which establishes a maximum floor area ratio of 2. S for both residential and non-residential uses within the classification, and a maximum density of 30 units per acre for residential. In addition, specific land use provisions have been applied to the. "lB" zone, as follows: This zone is ,.applied to larger parcels located primarily along major arterial roadways. The larger parcel size should allow for a mix of uses on the site.. The project site falls within the. "1B" designation because~;it is a large (30+ acre) site and is located along a major arterial roadway -East Washington Street. The project includes the mix of uses as stated in the MU1 ordinance provision, and the pedestrian paths and connectors with adjacent parcels as well as neighborhoods across U.S. 101 would accent its pedestrian-friendly features in an otherwise auto-oriented environment. The project is within the FAR as specified in the MU1 ordinance. Consistency with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan As discussed above, the project would offer a broad internal network of both pedestrian and bicycle paths and amenities; both as part of the project site and as part of the infrastructure improvements to surrounding streets. Policies land 3 through 6 concern bicycle facilities applicable to the project, and Policies 8 through 10 concern pedestrian facilities. Policy 1: Implement the bikeway system as outlined in the. Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, and expand and improve the bikeway system wherever the opportunity arises. Program F: Preserve the Highway 101 pedestrianlbicycle over-crossing south of East Washington Street interchange. The project proposed bicycle lanes along the south side of East Washington Street, north side of Johnson Drive, and .both sides of Kenilworth Drive. In addition, bicycle lanes are proposed within th_ e project site, though the exact configuration is still under discussion with, City staff and the. Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee.. As mentioned above, the- bicycle and pedestrian .paths would link directly with. the Highway 101 pedestrian/bicycle overcrossing, greatly enhancing its use and overall visibility. Policy 3: The City shall discourage using sidewalks as designated bicycle routes. ~~~ East Washington Place Page 9 The project includes improvements to ..East Washington Street, Johnson Drive and Kenilworth Drive that will 'include dedicated bicycle lanes and sidewalks for pedestrians where non exist currently. Policy 4: The City shall require Class II bike lanes on all new arterial and collector streets. The bicycle lanes on the streets mentioned above shall be of this classification. Policy S: All new and redesigned streets shall be bicycle and pedestrian friendly in design: As mentioned above, the improved streets will have both.. dedicated bicycle lanes and pedestrian sidewalks constructed per City code. specifications. Landscaping elements will be featured along these corridors for aesthetic effects, delineation of corridors, and eventual shading. Policy 6: Ensure that new development provides connections to and does not interfere with existing and proposed bicycle facilities. As mentioned above the project will include internal bicycle facilities and connections to bicycle lanes that will be constructed as part of the street improvements along East Washington, Johnson, and Kenilworth. Policy 8: Preserve and enhanc"e pedestrian connectivity in existing neighborhoods. and require a well connected pedestrian network linking new and existing developments to adjacent land uses. As mentioned above, the project includes dedicated pedestrian pathways within the project, and direct pedestrian linkage to the Highway 101 overcrossing to provide linkage to cross-town neighborhoods otherwise separated by this highway. Policy 9: Require the provision of pedestrian site access for all new development. The project has dedicated pathways and direct pedestrian access to public sidewalks and the overcrossing. Policy 10: Give priority to the pedestrian network and streetscape amenities near schools, transit, shopping, and mixed-use corridors emphasized in the General Plan. The improvements for East Washington, Kenilworth .and Johnson will include pedestrian sidewalks with accompanying landscaping and enhanced pedestrian access to nearby uses, including. the fairgrounds, swim center, and skate park. Site Plan and Architectural Review Guidelines In addition to consistency with. all applicable policies,, plans, and ordinance provisions, the project must adhere. to the provisions as stated in Chapter 24.010-Site Plan and Architectural Review, of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance, as follows: 1. Controls should be exercised to achieve a satisfactory quality of design in the Individual' building and its site,. appropriateness of the building to its intended use ~,.~ East Washington Place Page 10 and the harmony of the development with its surroundings. Satisfactory design quality and harmonywill involve among other things: a. The appropriate use of quality materials and harmony and proportion of the overall design. b. The architectural style which should be appropriate for the project in question, and compatible with the overall character of the neighborhood. c. The siting of the structure ,on the property as compared to the siting of other structures in the immediate neighborhood. d. The size, location, design, .color, number; lighting, and materials of all signs and outdoor advertising structures. e. The bulk, height ana' color of the proposed structure as compared to the bulk, height and color of other structures in the immediate neighborhood. 2. Landscaping to approved city standards shall be :required on the site and shall be in keeping with the character or design of the' site'. Existing trees shall be preserved wherever possible, and shall not be removed unless. approved by the Committee. 3. Ingress, egress, internal traffic circulation, off-street parking facilities and pedestrian ways shall be so designed as to promote safety and convenience, and shall conform to approved city standards. 4. It is recognized that good design character may require participation by a recognized professional designer, such. as an .architect, landscape architect or other practicing urban designer and the reviewing body shall have the authority to require that an applicant hire such a professional; when deemed necessary to achieve good design character. The project has been designed in a manner that optimizes its potential as a retail destination, but also creates gateways to surrounding uses by connecting pedestrian and. bicycle paths not only to the frontage street network, but also to the surrounding .neighborhood. The central spine of the project is comprised of a promenade with extensive pedestrian-friendly components, including plazas and landscape elements.designed in scale with the smaller retail locations around it. What is noteworthy here is how this promenade entry opens both. to the fairgrounds on one side, and the. pedestrian overpass on U.S. 101 on the other. Several General Plan and Pedestrian and Bicycle .Plan policies, discussed above, specifically mention the preservation of this overpass and its importance as a pedestrian linkage literally connecting two sides of the City. This central promenade feature has been well-designed with these policies in mind. Also noteworthy are" the project entries at Kenilworth/Johnson and Kenilworth/East Washington, both'featuring;pl'azalopen space features to present an aesthetically inviting gateway environment to pedestrians and bicyclists ~as -well as automobiles. This is especially noteworthy at the East Washington/K_enilworth entry since East Washington is a primary arterial for the City and General Paan Policies'. 2-P 23 and 2-P-81, discussed above,. specifically call for these types of components. 1.~ ~ ~.~ East Washington Place Page 11 The massing of the proposed buildings is sufficiently scaled :for the site. The site frontage areas along Kenilworth .and East Washington.. feature smaller-scale buildings which are appropriate for the project face. The larger-scale buildings, including-the anchor tenant building and sub-anchor tenant buildings, are set back to the rear of the project so that the overall site remains visually and aesthetically open as viewed from the surrounding areas, especially from the fairgrounds and the East Washington, Johnson and Kenilworth entries. It is important for new developments to connect with their surroundings and not create visual barriers-to adjacent uses or create massing that essentially transforms. the project into astand-along, entity. This project succeeds at these levels. The internal pedestrian and bicycle pathways have been designed for optimum use of the promenade area and connector. points with nearby frontage sidewalks. and bicycle lanes. One area that still needs to be addressed is the bicycle paths along both sides of the promenade that are circulated through parking areas. It is important. to• promote bicycle safety and the mix of cars and bicyclists in these areas is not recommended and is under current discussion with City staff and the Pedestrian and, Bicycle Advisory Committee (PBAC) to separate these uses appropriately. The parking and loading areas have 'been designed for .maximum visibility and the loading areas are appropriately situated to the rear of the large anchor and sub-anchor tenants for aesthetic as well as safety reasons. The parking areas themselves are large and open to provide visibility and utility for the main tenants, although the large amount of project space devoted to parking presents its own visual :concerns that are only partially addressed with the central promenade acting as an aesthetic break. Landscape elements within the. parking areas should offset this somewhat, and alternative parking scenarios, such as garages, would present their own aesthetic concerns and have not been proposed .here. The parking areas are ample. enough to provide the necessary parking ratios as .required by the ordinance and still provide separation elements to ensure optimum safety and unimpeded access for bicyclists and pedestrians; these details will be addressed further by City staff, the PBAC, and the Planning Commission. MAJOR ISSIYES A~"lD, CIJFtRE~dT' DISClJSS1O1~ ATEI~S Project Consistency with the Definition of "Mixed-Use" The proposed project consists'of approximately 364, 000 square feet of commercial/retail uses and approximately 1,6,000 square feet of office uses. Given th's breakdown in square footage, over 95% of the project square-footage would be commercial retail. In addition, no residential, institutional, or other- related. land uses are proposed; therefore; the project could be considered primarily a commercial retail project with an office component. However; mixed=use-.land :designations are created. to allow flexible and complimentary land uses on project sites; they typically do not require specific breakdowns or percentages in uses, nor do they require all land uses within a particular zoning designation to be included as part of a proposed project. When deciding the suitability and applicability of appropriate land uses as part 1j -1~ Washington Place Page 12 of a mixed-use project, the jurisdiction should take into account the ,physical.. attributes, limitations, and environmental setting of the site as well as the surrounding parcels and overall vicinity. When taken together, these factors present the-best case for appropriate land uses.. Comments, in, the EIR review process related to -the omission of residential uses from the proposed project. As stated above, the original proposal for East Washington Place, presented in 2004, included '227 residential units. When analyzed,, it was determined that potentially significant environmental factors, including impacts to noise and air. quality, would be raised by residential development at the project site. Given these potential. factors, the. applicant was advised by City ,staff to omit the. proposed residential component, although market and macroeconomic factors also played a significant role. The potentially signif cant impacts to ;residential uses, classified as "sensitive" by the California Air Resources Board (CARBj in ,its: 2'005 Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, from noise and.air quality are readily apparent. The project site is located between U.S. 101, East Washington Street, and the Sonoma-Marie Fairgrounds. The Sonoma- Marin Fairgrounds includes the Petaluma Speedway, which s;located adjacent the southwesterly border of the ,project. The speedway hours of operation, as of this writing, are every Saturday night from 7:00 PM to 10:00 PM between March and October. As stated above, U.S. 101 is adjacent the project site to the north-northeast along a significant portion of project frontage, and is a major inter-urban freeway in this vicinity. In its land use guidelines, CARB does not' recommend the siting of residential uses within 500 feet of a freeway. Based on a rough calculation of site frontage/project acreage, more than 50% of the project sife is within 500 feet of the U:S. 101 right-of--way. In addition, the City's General Plan Policy 10-P-3.B states the following: Discourage location of new noise-sensitive uses, primarily homes, in areas with projected noise levels greater than. 65 dB CNEL: Where such uses :are permitted, require incorporation of mitigation measures to ensure that interior noise levels do not exceed 45 dB CNEL. According to Figure 10-1: 1Voise Contours in the General Plan, the entire project site lies within the 65 dB CNEL contour and the portion .nearest the freeway lies within the 70 dB CNEL contour: In .addition, Figure 10-2: Land Use Compatibility Standards,. lists residential. uses as "conditionally acceptable" above the 65 dB CNEL, and "normally unacceptable" above the 70 dB :CNEL. Since the 70 dB CNEL contour is located in the vicinity of the freeway, the areas between 65-70 dB are near Kenilworth, directly across the street from the fairgrounds and associated speedway uses. Based on a combination of these and related factors,, staff finds that the proposed project uses are compatible with: the land designation of "mixed-use" at'the project site. It should also be stated here that residential uses are not among the project's objectives as listed in'the EIR, nor are they requested or desired by the applicant. East Washington Place Page 13 ~- f3 Potential Revisions to the Project Staff is aware that the applicant is in ongoing discussions with various prospective tenants for possible'nclusion to the proposed project. Thy physical requirements, loading requirements, and .dimensions of :their desired operations may be diffe"rent than the proposed site plan as .reflected on the current Vesting Tentative Map application and related;project plans and exhibits. In the event that a proposed tenant/user is proposed for incorporation in a way that results in a different or amended project configuration, staff will determine whether an amendment to the Vesting Tentative 'Map and/or :Site Plan :and Architectural review approval is required. Normally, this would occur with a change in the number of'lots or a reconfiguration of existing lots beyond that normally addressed by a Lot-Line Adjustment. However, because a Vesting Tentative Map is proposed and has more site specific implications than a Tentative Map, the site configuration and square footage .must be considered. In addition, the .requirements for environmental review as required by CEQA would be addressed. In the event that the EIR .has been certified. for the proposed current project prior to a significant change proposed to the project, an Initial Study may be conducted to determine whether or not new and potentially significant .impacts result from the proposed changes which have not already been adequately disctissed and mitigated in the .certified EIR. For example, if the proposed new use didn't significantly alter the traffic trips and level-of-service analysis in the certified EIR, then additional mitigations for traffic would not be warranted; a similar scenario would be applied for other potential impacts from any proposed change to the project. Relocation of the Carter Little League Fields Portions of the project site are currently being. utilized by youth sports activities. Little League baseball is currently being played at the Carter Little League 'Fields, under an agreement between the property owner and the Petaluma National Little League Association. The City is not a party to this agreement, and there are no provisions for public use.. In addition; these facilities are not part. of the City's park system and the site is not referenced in the City's General Plan as park property; however, they are referenced as a joint -use facility and are part of the park and recreation space inventory. If the proposed project is approved, it. is anticipated that the Little League activities would end- at the time of site preparation and pre-construction of the project. .The fields would then be relocated to Petaluma Junior .High. School andlor a combination of facilities. It is important to the City that the Little League season is not significantly impacted or interrupted. As a condition of approval, the property owner, the Petaluma National .Little League. Association, and the Petaluma School District ~(if.applicable) will provide:'the City a copy of the agreement as to the timing and relocation of :the fields prior to issuance of grading/building permit. In the event that this agreement has not been finalized by that time, the City shall document the status and make recommendations to fhe involved parties if warranted. The City acknowledges it is not party to this agreement. East Washington Place Page 14 1~-i~t Impacts and Improvements to the Petaluma Swim Center and Skate Park The Petaluma Swim Center and Skate Park are adjacent to the project site across Johnson Drive and Kenilworth Ave.; The project includes major ;improvements to Johnson Drive which is anticipated to become a primary transportation access point to the project. Public comments have been raised regarding potential impacts to the Swim. Center and Skate Park not only from temporary construction impacts of Johnson Drive, but also, potential noise, air, and aesthetic concerns from increased traffic. on Johnson Drive. The applicant and the Recreation Services Division have been in discussion regarding improvements to be provided by the applicant to the- swim center and skate park. Among these would include a revised parking and access configuration, new lighting and signage, and landscaping and fencing features designed to reduce .noise and air quality impacts to both swim center and skate park operations.. In addition, the applicant would' provide new energy efficient solar panels long sought by the center. These design and construction details will be part of a landscape improvement plan to be submitted by the applicant .to the City as a condition of approval. Installation of these improvements will be timed per the requirements. of the. Recreation Services Division. In addition, another condition of approval will require that construction. of Johnson Drive ensure unimpeded access to the swim center and skate park so these facilities are not .negatively impacted during their seasonal operation (March to October). Options for Improved Transit Access Staff has received numerous comments regarding the possibility of improving. transit access to the proposed project. Staff is currently working with the Transit. Division Manager, the City Engineer, and the applicant on a new transit stop at or near the frontage of the project in the vicinity of the Kenilworth Drive/Johnson Drive intersection. This general location has been selected over other possible. locations further to the outh along Kenilworth due to the constraints and scheduling patterns of transit vehicles. In addition; it is expected that this new general location would provide enhanced transit' access to the. Swim Center and Skate Park. The exact location and engineering details have- not been finalized at this time; however, additional ,language has been added to Mitigation Measure AQ-1 in the EIR that will .require the applicant to work with City staff and. the Transit Division Manager on the siting. and possible improvements of this new transit location. In addition, project improvement plans to be submitted as a condition of .approval will show curb/cutout locations within the project site for prime access by paratransit vehicles. FISC~i~,A~D ECOI~ONIIC II~PAC"P ~-N~ILVSIS General Plan 2025 Goal 9-G-1 is to "establish a diverse .and sustainable local economy that meets the. needs of the community's residents and employers". In order to ensure that new commercial development. will have a net positive impact on the community, Program "A" of East Washington Place Page l5 1j-15 General :Plan Policy 9-P-2 recommended that the City consider the need fora "fiscal/economic impact analysis as a component of the project's entitlement process". In addition, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2008-;1$9 N.G.S.: in Octoljer of 200.8, which required the preparation of "Fiscal and Economic Impact .Assessments" for certain commercial uses of a given size and type that are likely to -have significant impacts on the local economy. For this. project, the consultant selected by the City was Bay Area Economics (BAE). BAE is a multi-disciplinary real estate and urban development. advisory firm with extensive expertise in economic development and development advisory services to public and private clients. BAE was selected not only for the firm's overall experience with other Bay Area and Northern California communities in preparing: FEIA's in their various forms (e:g., Tracy, Eureka, Antioch, Morgan Hill, Windsor) but also because of their specific experience with the East Washington Place protect as the "economic blight" .sub-consultant on the East Washington Place EIR. As stated in the report, BAE used the most recently available information at the time of analysis (December 2008) to establish baseline conditions. Of course,. BAE recognizes that over the course of the FEIA process,. conditions may change rapidly, especially in the current economic environment. The analysis. assumes that the project will be fully .developed and occupied by the beginning of 2011. Per the Council Resolution regarding FEIAs, the analysis also looks at a point in time five. years after the assumed project opening date. The analysis also assumes that this will be a fully functioning center, with the project's outlets achieving a level of revenue reflective of state and national •averages or benchmarks for each" sector represented in the project. This is considered a reasonable and defensible basis upon which to evaluate the potential economic, employment, and fiscal impacts of the proposed project. A public hearing on the FEIA was held by the City Counci'1 on April 6, 2009. As stated. in Section 10 of the FEIA resolution, "The purpose of the Council FEIA hearing is to have public discussion of project FEIA's with the. City Council, applicants and the public before project land use entitlements are granted:" The hearing is not intended to require or result in separate findings, conclusions or approvals for a project. The FEIA .may be used by deciding bodies during the normal course of project review and the entitlement process "in determining project consistency with General :Plan economic goals, policies and programs, including whether the project will have a net positive impact on Petaluma's economy, existing businesses; city finances and quality of life". During the entitlement process the deciding bodies .may accept and adopt the information, analysis, and conclusions of the FEIA as findings in support of their action concerning the project. Therefore;, no specific action is required or expected from the Council at this Time; and there is no requirement that the FEIA is subject to subsequent amendments, responses to comments or further City Council review. A Leakage Analysis commissioned by the City of Petaluma in 2005 showed that Petaluma and the trade area were, under-retailed in many major categories.. The .leakage analysis done as part of the FEIA came to the same. conclusion. The report also concluded: A). That the ..East Washington Place project has the potential to capture a sizable portion of -these sales, which are .resident expenditures currently going. elsewhere: While there may be some disruption for existing, retail outlets, growing overall retail demand linked to the East Washington Place Page 16 -d~a r area's gradual population growth should allow for eventual re-tenanting of any short-term vacancies: ' B) .East Washington Place should result in a net gain in retail employment. estimated at .593 jobs in 20,11. Within the project, there are projected to be 721 permanent jobs, with 667 of those in the retail sector. The project is also estimated to generate 388 temporary construction jobs. C) Taking into account. local tax and fee revenues generated by East Washington Place and city costs to provide services, the project will generate. an estimated net fiscal surplus of approximately $1.0 million annually to the City of Petaluma General Fund, owing largely to the sales taxes generated. Specific factors required by Resolution 2008-189 N.C.S. to be analyzed in the FEIAs are listed below with a summary of where in the document each item has been discussed. 1. The existing local retail market conditions for .market sectors proposed for the project, including project primary and significant secondary market sectors, leakage of sales to other commu""pities in those market sectors, .regional market competition in the project market sectors and populations, demographic and related data for the project market sectors: The trade area was defined as the area from which. the retail uses in the center are likely to draw customers. Since shoppers usually go to the store closest to their residence, the trade area was based .largely on the location of .other nearby Target stores and other retail centers in Novato, Rohnert Park and Santa Rosa.. Thus, the trade area. was defined as Petaluma and surrounding areas, extending east through the City of Sonoma, south. to Marn County and a limited distance to the north,and west. BAE concluded that there are no ``significant" secondary market sectors. Table 6 on page 11 of the FEIA. compares taxable retail sales for Petaluma, Novato, Rohnert Park and Sonoma County. General merchandise, home furnishings and appliance sales were found to be very weak in Petaluma. For general merchandise, 2007 taxable sales, when adjusted for inflation, were found to be lower than they were a decade ago. Table 7 on page 24 of the FEIA shows taxable sales in Petaluma as compared to Sonoma County in 2007 for other retail store categories. Demographics, including population, household and employment trends, are discussed on pages 6 - 9 of the FEIA. 2. Estimated .retail sales by project retail sectors or merchandise- categories per square foot, including estimated captured leakage. The project's estimated sales per square foot in each merchandise category is shown in Table 10 on page. 30. Annual sales are estimated to be approximately $329 per square foot. Table 11 shows the. expected capture of leakage by the development, which is estimated at 33 percent when combining all sales .categories. East Washington Place Page 17 ~-Il 3. Current and estimated retail supply and demand for each project retail sector or merchandise category. The significant amount. of leakage in the Trade Area shows that there is a demand for general merchandise stores, food. stores; home furnishings and appliances, building materials and other retail stores. This is discussed on pages 21-23 of the FEIA. Available supply is discussed on pages 22 through 28 and is broken down by category. Employment characteristics: the number and.. types of jobs; including construction related, permanent, part-time and full-time;, whether the project will result in increased or decreased permanent part-time jobs; or full=time jobs, or a combination of both compared to applicable employment projects; estimated wages, benefits and employer contributions. The analysis of employment° characteristics begins on page 44. Three hundred eighty-eight temporary jobs will be creafed during construction. The consultants used a 2001 employment density study prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments which estimated 900 square feet of retail store space per employee. Other categories, such as restaurants and offices, have higher employment densities. Based on this estimate, the project is expected to generate 72'1 new jobs, with 390 of those being full time and 331 part time. Upon opening, the shopping center could result in a loss of 75 jobs in existing, retail outlets in Petaluma, but by 2016, due to increases in population, some of those jobs could be recovered. Employee wages and benefits will vary depending upon the occupation. Table 17 on page 47 shows estimated wages for likely occupations within the center. Petaluma's Living Wage Policy was adopted in January of 2007 to ensure that City employees and employees of City contractors earn an hourly wage that is sufficient to live with dignity and to achieve self-.sufficiency. The Policy .does to apply to private sector employers, but was used by BAE as a standard to compare average wages for relevant occupations. The current living wage, which was: updated on January 1, 2008, is $13.64 per hour without an employee medical benefit plan. and. $12.14 per hour wth_ an employee medical plan. The average wage data presented in, Table 17 does not provide information on the level of medical and other benefits offered- to employees in conjunction with their wage. However, the average wages for sales. and related occupations,, office and, administrative support occupations, and construction and extraction occupations exceed the $,13.64 living wage hourly standard for employees without medical benefits: Food preparation and serving-related occupations have the lowest average wage at $10:47 per hour, but food servers often earn tips that supplement their wages. The 25th percentile wages, however, are below 'the living wage levels for all but the office and construction occupational ~ categories, indicating that starting wages for .new hires could be below the living wage levels: The report concluded. that employee. earnings would likely be comparable to prevailing market wages for similar types of employment throughout the County. 4. The ,estimated impacts of ,the proposed project on existing retail businesses, including the potential for opportunities for business renewal and growth due to new businesses locating in the ~~~ East Washington Place Page 18 Petaluma community, as well as -the potential for negative impacts such as reduced sales or closures. The discussion on potential impacts on existing businesses. begins on page 36. The discussion includes impacts on types of merchandise as well as on the different shopping centers and some specific stores in Petaluma. The .report concludes that East Washington Place has the potential to capture a sizable portion of sales, which. are currently lost to other communities. Some disruption may occur at existing retail outlets, but growing overall retail demand linked to the area's gradual population growth should allow for eventual re-tenanting of any short-term vacancies. S. The estimated project impacts on current and projected public revenues. This part of the analysis begins on page 50. Table 32 shows the revenues as compared to the community costs and estimates that the proposed project will generate a net fiscal surplus of approximately $1:0 million annually to the City of `Petaluma General Fund. The non-general fund revenues and costs discussion begins on page 63. Revenues .from Development Impact Fees are expected to be $10,481,097 and the Redevelopment Agency will receive $472,067. The developer will also be required to improve and dedicate Kenilworth Drive to the City. 6. The estimated cost of public contributions, services and infrastructure required by the project. This discussion. is on page 66. The City is not planning to extend tax rebates or refunds, land right-downs, below .market or contingent. loans, site acquisition or preparation costs, fee waivers or payments, etc. to the East Washington Place development: Therefore, no public contribution costs should accrue to the City. Overall, staff has concluded that the contents and analysis in the East Washington Place FEIA conform to the requirements contained in Section 6 of Resolution 200.8-189 N.C.S.. The FEIA further complies with the policy direction and intent expressed by Section. 2, and does "provide an objective evaluation of the potential economic impacts of [the] specified retail/commercial project." Financial Impacts: As required by the FEIA policy resolution, the overall assessment. of the proposed East Washington Place, development is that the project will generate an estimated net fiscal surplus of approximately $1.0 million .annually to the City of Petaluma General Fund, owing largely to the sales taxes generated. ~~~1~®Ir~~6lf1fE6~1~L~~ ~[~~'9~~7, Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) advising that an EIR was to be prepared' for the project was sent to the .State Clearinghouse for distribution on October 1.4,.2008. After receiving the NOP, these agencies'had 30 days in which to comment on East Washington Place Page 19 -~-1~ .how, in terms of .scope and content; the DEIR should. treat environmental information related to the agency's statutory responsibilities. Subsequent to that date, a Draft EIR was prepared, and submitted for public comment on July 16, 2009. A notice was published in the.Argus Courier on July 16 and sent to residents and property owners within 1,000 feet of the 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. Copies of all written comments :received on the Draft EIR, and a record of oral comments made at a Planning Commission Meeting on August 25, and the City Council Meeting on September 14 are contained within the Final EIR. The City Council will consider whether to certify the Final EIR and approve the proposed project during a noticed public meeting. If the proposed project is approved, recommended mitigation measures would be incorporated into the conditions ofapproval, unless the City Council identifies alternative mitigation measures or makes Findings of Overriding Consideration. as to why the mitigation measures are: not feasible. Impacts and Mitigation Measures The EIR 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 a less- han-significant level with the incorporation of various mitigation measures. Several significant and unavoidable impacts are cumulative impacts identified in General Plan 2025 These mitigation measures .have been identified in the EIR 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 proposed project would cause unavoidable significant impacts with respect to air quality and traffic as follows: ® 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. giza'lity. A majority of the emissions generated by full build out. of the project would be produced by traffic. ~' East Washington Place Page 20 ® Impact TRA-7: Increased motor vehicle traffic would:xesult in unacceptable level of service (LO.S) at study intersections. Build out. of the land uses envisioned in the Petaluma General Plan would result in significantimpacts at the following two study intersections: ^ Lakeville Street / Caulfield Lane ^ Lakeville Street / East D Street There would also be significant impacts at the following,segments of U.S. Highway 101: ^ Petaluma Boulevard to .Lakeville Highway ^ Lakeville Highway to Washington Street ^ Washington Street to Redwood Highway Overriding Considerations CEQA Section 15.091 requires public agencies to make one or more 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 of the 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 may be 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 less than significant, the Lead Agency must state in writing the specific reasons to support the project approval based on a balancing of project benefits against impacts remaining significant ad identified in the Final EIR and/or other information in the .record.. This is formally known as a "S:tatement of Overriding Considerations" and is made pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093.. If findings of overriding consideration are not adopted by the Lead' Agency in those. instances where unavoidable project- related- environmental effects identified in the EIR would :remain significant, the Lead Agency cannot approve the proposed project. Planning Commission Hearing on the FEIR Per the City's CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission_requested that the FEIR return to the commission for consideration. The commission's discussion is expected to focus on the changes in the DEIR and the responses to public comments on the DEIR, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15089(b). The Planning Commission will comment on the, adequacy of the document and decide whether or not, to recommend the document to the City Council for certification. ~-a.~ East Washington Place Page 21 PUBLIC ~®TICE A Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Argus Courier on November 12, 2009 and notices were sent to residents and property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject property, as well as interested parties who requested notification. ATT/®C9iME6YT~ A. Findings for Site Plan and Architectural Review; Findings for the Vesting Tentative Map; Findings for Recommendation to the City Council :for Certification of the Environmental Impact Report and a. Statement of Overriding Considerations. B. Final Environmental Impact Report (DEIR previously delivered to Planning Commissioners) C. Fiscal and Economic Impact Analysis D. 11" x 17" Site, Architectural and Landscape Plan Set, Vesting Tentative Map Exhibits ~~~~-- East Washington Place ~ Page 22 ATTACHMENT A [ f~9~®~'~t~S ~®fft 5~~~ [~~~~ ~~®''~~~~69~'E~TU~I~ ~~V9~~9 1. The Planning Commission authorizes the construction of the site improvements for the proposed East Washington Place project and the architectural plans for its buildings and related structures. 2. ~ The project as conditioned will conform to the intent, goals and policies of the Petaluma General Plan 2025. 3. The construction, as conditioned, will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the- community because it will be operated in conformance with the Petaluma .Implementing Zoning Ordinance. 4. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been: prepared for the project in compliance with CEQA and is recommended for certification by the: City Council. 5. The proposed. architecture and site plan, as conditioned, conform to the requirements of Site Plan and Architectural Review provisions of Chapter 24.010 of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance as: a. Quality materials are used appropriately and the project is in harmony and proportion to the surrounding structures; b. The architectural style is appropriate for the project and is compatible with other structures in the: immediate neighborhood; c. The siting of the new structures are comparable to the siting of other structures in the immediate neighborhood; d. The bulk, height, and color of the new structures are comparable to the bulk, height, and color of other structures in the immediate neighborhood; e. The landscaping is in keeping with the character and design of the site; and f. Ingress, 'egress, internal traffic circulation, off-street automobile and bicycle parking facilities and pedestrian ways have been designed to promote safety and convenience. ~ '~3 East Washington Place Page 23 ~f~6d~~~~~ ~~~ lI°~,1~ ~~~~9~9G ~~~~~~~~~ 61~~f 1. The proposed Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map, as, coriciitioned, is consistent with the provisions of Title 20, Subdivisions; of the Municipal Code (Subdivision Ordinance) and the State Subdivision Map Act. 2. The proposed subdivision, together with provisions for its design and improvements, is consistent with the General .Plan, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare in that adequate public facilities eXist or will be installed, including roads, sidewalks, water, sewer,. storm drains, and other infrastructure. 3. The site is physically suitable forthe density and the type of development proposed. 4. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared, for the project in compliance with CEQA and is recommended for certification by the City Council. ~~~ East Washington Place Page 24 ~B~®BR~~~ B=®6~ ERIC®~~~~t'1®~a~B®R9 °B•® '~~li€~ ~8~~ t~~LBP-~C~ B=~fR ~~E~~B~B~~~9®a9 ~B= ~~~ ~~9!lBB~~~~~~Z9~1'~Ei9 0~i1~~~Y R[~~®6~~' ~Rl® r~ ~~~~L~~€~~~ ~f~ ®~~RRI®6Bd~ ~®~~B®€~6~'1I0®Gd~ :Environmental Impact Report: 1. The City prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed project consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and pursuant to 14 California Code of Regulations'Section 15064(a)(1). 2. The Environmental Impact Report reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis. Where the EIR. identf ed potentially significant environmental impacts and related mitigation measures the City Council will adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations for significant impacts related to air quality and traffic that cannot be mitigated to aless-than-significant level. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. The Planning Commission on November 24, 2009, reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Report and considered public comments and recommended certification of the document to the City Council. 7. In conformance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, a Mitigation .Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared to ensure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures. 8. A copy of this notice was published in the Argus Courier November 12, 2009 and mailed tq residents and occupants within 500 feet of the site, in compliance with CEQA requirements. 9. The Environmental Impact Report and :related Project and environmental documents, including the Initial Study; its, supporting documents and all information and documents incorporated herein by reference are available- for review at Petaluma City Hall, Planning Department, File No. 09-GPA-0'133 during normal business hours. The custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings for the Project is the City of Petaluma Planning Department, I 1 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952, 1Vlitigation Measures All mitigation measures as contained in the EIR are herein incorporated by reference. East. Washington Place Page 25 From Planning: Before issuance, of any development permit, the applicant shall revise the site plan or other first sheet of the. office and job site copies of •the Building Permit plans to list these Conditions of Approval and the Mitigation Measures from the Mitigation Monitoring Program in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) as notes. 2. The plans, submitted for building permit review shall be in .substantial compliance with the design review set date stamped November 17, 2009 and. the full size plans dated July 6, 2009, unless amended per City direction. 3. All Mitigation Measures adopted. in conjunction with the FEIR (SCH NO. 2005052061) for the project are. herein incorporated by reference as conditions of project approval. 4. Upon certification by the City Council of the FEIR; the applicant shall pay the Notice of Determination fee to the Planning Division. The check shall be made payable to the County Clerk. Planning staff will f le the Notice of Determination with the County Clerk's office within five (5) days of receiving Council approval. 'The State ~ Department of Fish and Game has eliminated the fee exemption. for projects determined that have a de minimis effect on fish and wildlife and requires that an environmental filing fee be paid, (as required under Fish and Game Code Section 711.4d) to the Sonoma County Clerk on or before the filing of the Notice of Determination (as of January 2009, the fee is $1,993, contact them at 944-5500 to confirm). Prior to building permit approval, the plans shall note the installation of high efficiency heating equipment (90% or higher heating/furnaces) and low NOx water heaters (40 NOx or less) in compliance with policy 4-P-15D (reducing emissions). 6. Prior to building or grading permit approval, all plans- shall note the following and all construction contracts shall :include the same requirements (or measures ,shown to be equally effective, as approved by Planning), in compliance with General Plan Policy 4-P- 16: • Maintain. construction equipment engines in good condition and in proper tune per manufacturer's specification for the duration of construction; • Minimize idling time. of construction related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, .motor vehicles; and portable equipment; • Use alternative. fuel. construction equipment (i.e.; compressed natural gas; liquid petroleum gas, and unleaded gasoline); • U"se add-on control devices such as diesel oxidation catalysts or particulate filters; • Use .diesel equipment that meets the ARB's 2000 or newer certification standard for off-road heavy-duty diesel engines; • Phase construction of the project; and • Limit the hours. of operation of heavy duty equipment. -alp East Washington Place Page 26 7. Prior to building or grading permit issuance, the applicant shall provide a Construction Phase Recycling Plan. that would address the- reuse. and recycling of major waste materials (soil, vegetation, concrete, lumber; metal scraps; cardboard, packing, etc., generated by any demolition activities and construction of the: project, in compliance with General Plan Policy 2-P-122 for review by the planning staff.' 8. Plans submitted for building permit shall include pre-wiring. for solar facilities for each of new structure subject to-staff review and approval. The applicant shall also look into the feasibility ifpre-wiring for solar facilities for the existing structures. 9. The project shall obtain LEED certification. The proposed project will be built in accordance with Green Building standards that would- reduce energy-related GHG emissions by at least 20 percent from those that would. occur under current Title 24 Building Code requirements. The applicant shall present these to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit. 10. Prior to issuance of a grading/ building permit; the applicant shall provide a lighting and photometrics plan for planning staff reviewing and., approval. Said lighting plan shall .include exterior light locations and details of the proposed fixture type and the luminens. All lighting shall be glare-free, hooded and. downcast in order to prevent glare. 11. The applicant shall be subjecf to the following Special development fees: Sewer~and Water Connection, Community :Facilities; Storm Drain, Public Art .Ordinance (Ordinance No. 2202 N.C.S., School Facilities and Traffic Mitigation fees. Said fees are due at time of issuance of building permit at`which time, other pertinent fees that may be applicable to the proposed project may be required. 12. All construction. activities shall be limited to 7:00. a:m. to 6:00 p:m. Monday through Friday and interior work only between. 9:00 a.m. and. 5::00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction shall be prohibited on Sundays. and. all holidays recognized by the City of Petaluma, unless a permit is first secured from the City Manager (or his/her designee) for additional hours. There will be no start up of .machines or equipment prior to 7:30 a.m., Monday through Friday; no delivery of materials or equipment prior to ?:30 a.m. or past 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday; no servicing, of equipment past 6::45 p.m.; Monday through Friday. Plan submitted for City permit shall include the language above. 13. Signs are not,approved as part of this project proposal. Signs require a sign permit. 14. In the event that archaeological remains are encountered during grading, work shall be halted temporarily .and. a .qualified archaeologist. shall be consulted for evaluation of the artifacts and to recommend future action. The local Native. American community shall also be notified and consulted in the event any archaeological remains are uncovered. East Washington Place Page 27 ~-a~ 15. As recommended by the arbgrist the final project design shall .incorporate appropriate tree protection procedures as part of the improvement plans to provide tree protection consistent with General Plan~policies and all applicable City regulations. 16. Prior to issuance of building/gradng permits the applicant shall submit the status of the agreement between the applicant and all associated parties for the timing and relocation of the Carter Little League Fields and related activities. In the event that this agreement has not been finalized. by that. time, the City shall document the status and make recommendations to the involved parties if warranted. The City acknowledges it is not party to this agreement. 17. The applicant shall incorporate: the following Best. Management Practices into the construction and improvement plans and clearly indicate these provisions in the aspecifications. The construction. contractor shall incorporate these measures into the required Erosion and .Sediment Control Plan to limit fugitive ,dust and exhaust emissions during construction. i. Grading and construction equipment operated during: construction activities shall be properly muffled and. maintained to minimize emissions. Equipment shall be turned off when riot in use. ii. Exposed soils. shall be watered periodically during construction, a minimum of twice daily. The frequency of watering shall be increased if wind speeds exceed 15mph. Only purchased city water or reclaimed water shall be used for this purpose. Responsibility for watering shall include weekends and holidays when work is not in progress. iii. Construction sites involving earthwork shall .provide. for a gravel pad area consisting. of an impermeable liner and drain rock at the construction entrance to clean mud and debris from construction vehicles prior to entering the public roadways. Street surfaces in the vicinity ofthe'project shall be routinely swept and cleared of mud and dust carried onto the street by construction vehicles. iv. During excavation activities, haul trucks used to transport, soil shall utilize tarps or other similar covering.. devices to reduce dust emissions. v. Post-construction re=vegetation, repaving or soil stabilization of exposed soils shall be completed in a timely manner according to the approved Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and verified by City inspectors prior to acceptance of improvements or issuance of a certificate. of occupancy. vi. Applicant shall designate a person with authority to require increased watering to monitor the dust and erosion control program and provide name and phone number to the City of Petaluma prior to issuance of grading permit. 18. The. applicant: shall defend, indemnify .and hold harmless the City and. its officials, boards, commissions; ,agents; officers and employees ("Indemnitees") from any claim, action or proceeding against Indemnitees to attack; set aside; void. or .annul any of the approvals of the project to 'the maximum. extent permitted by Government Code section .66477.9. To the; extent permitted by Government Code section 66477.9, the applicant's duty to defend, indemnify and hold harmless in accordance with this condition shall apply to any and all claims; actions or proceedings brought concerning. the project, not just such claims, actions East Washington Place Page 28 or proceedings brought within the Time period provided .for in applicable State and/or local statutes. The City shall promptly ,notify the subdivider of any such claim, action or proceeding concerning the ubdiv'son; The City .shall cooperate .fully in the defense. Nothing- contained in this condition shall ;prohibit the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action, or proceeding; and if the: City chooses to do so, applicant shall reimburse City for attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the City to the maximum extent permitted by Government Code section 66477:9. From the Department of Public Works: Street and Frontage Improvements 19. Street and frontage improvements shall be constructed as proposed. on the application plans and according to City standards. Improvements shall include but not be limited to pavement, curb, gutter, sidewalk, traffic islands, traffic signals, traffic signs, pavement striping and markers, pedestrian ramps, bike lanes, streetlights, etc. 20. A 5-foot wide sidewalk shall..'be constructed on Kenilworth .Drive, through the bus facility property to Lindberg Lane and shall be on the east side of the street. 21. The minimum pavement section shall be 5-inches of. asphalt concrete (AC) over 15-inches of class 2 aggregate base (AB) for Johnson and. Kenilworth Drive and 6-inches of AC over 21-inches of class 2 AB for East Washington Street. 22. "No Parking" signs shall be placed along Johnson and Kenilworth Drives. 23. Street lights shall be installed along Johnson Drive and Kenilworth Drive per City Standards. As an option and at the discretion of the City Engineer, the City may require LED street lights. 24. Traffic control plans shall be submitted and approved prior to the start of street construction. 25. A transit stop shall be provided in the vicnity.of the existing pool facility that allows for convenient. and safe passenger access. The final location shall be determined by the City Engineer and Transit Division Manager. Gradin 26. Grading, excayat'on and compaction shall conform to the soils report prepared for this site. 27. All above-ground or below-ground structures ,(buildings, fences, pipes, conduits, etc.) that are' not necessary or not longer needed, shall be removed. 28. Erosion. control plans, s"torm water pollution prevention plans, notice of..intent and notice of terrrina"ton shall be~ provided. East Washington Place Page 29 Water and Sanitary Sewer Systems 29. The on-site sanitary sewer ystem shall be privately owned and maintained. 30. The sanitary sewer in Kenilworth Drive shall be public. and extend to Lindberg Lane within the Kenilworth Drive and not continue through the bus facility property. 31. The water system shall be constructed as proposed on the application plan, according to City standards and as directed by the Water Resources and Conservation Department (WR&C). 32. The water system shall lie' capable of delivering a continuous fire flow as designated by the fire marshal. Provide final :fire flow calculations. Storm Drain System 33. The on-site storm drain system. shall be privately owned and maintained with the exception of any existing City public .systems.. 34. The peak storm water. flow from the project site shall be limited to the pre-development condition as indicated in the hydrology/hydraulic studyprovided by the project engineer. 35. The storm. drain detention and treatment system .shall meet the requirements of the City General Plan polices; City standards and NPDES,. phase II storm water regulations, attachment 4. 36. The storm drain system. within ;Kenilworth and Johnson Drive shall be public. Minimum storm drain pipe diameter is 15-inches. 37. The storm drain in Johnson Drive shall be capable. of containing a 10-year storm without standing water in the .street. Calculations and/or improvement plans to support this requirement shall be submitted. 3`8. The .storm drain system shall be' reviewed and approved by the Sonoma County Water Agency. Final Map 39. Dedicate. proposed public street right-of--way, access easements,. utility easements, etc., as proposed on the -final map and necessary for the construction. of .improvements. 40. A 10-foot wide public utility easement (PUE) shall be dedicated adjacent to and along the entire public street right-of--way. Any reduction. or elimination of this requirement shall be confirmed in a letter from the applicable utility agencies. ~3~ East Washington Place Page 30 41. Documentation shall be submitted indicating easements have been dedicated for the public access, public utilities and construction of street and utility improvements for Johnson Drive and Kenilworth Drive through the bus facility property. 42. Define on the map or 'by separate document, access and parking easements between proposed parcels. 43. Vacate, abandon or quitclaim. any existing easements: that are unnecessary, outdated or not needed as identified on the tentative map and listed in the title report. The process of removing existing easements shall be completed prior to recording the final map or issuance of a building permit. Miscellaneous 44. Existing overhead utilities along the street frontages and/or traversing the site shall be placed underground. 45. All shared private facilities, including but not limited to water lines, sanitary sewer lines, storm drains; access,. parking, etc., shall require maintenance agreements: Agreements shall be approved. by the City prior to recordation. 46. Maintenance of the storm drain detention and water quality treatment system shall be the responsibility of the property .owner(s). A financial and operation plan for maintenance, inspection, reporting, etc., shall be established. Documents shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to recordation. 47. Mitigation measures identified in the adopted final EIR shall be considered part of these conditions of approval. 48. A final map and improvement plans shall be prepared according to the latest City policies. Joint trench plans shall be submitted with improvement plans. Prior to final map recordation, the applicable. public improvement agreement, bonds and insurance shall be submitted reviewed and approved. Final map, improvement plan. and technical review fees. shall. be required at application'submittal. The final map shall be scanned after recordation and submitted to the City Engineer.. Improvement plan record drawings shall be scanned and submitted to the City Engineer prior to release of the performance bond. 49. The applicant shall pay a. fair share contribution for installation of a future traffic signal at the intersection of Lakeville Street and Lindberg Lane. The contribution shall be based on peak hour; future plus project trips, versus general. plan trips on Lindberg Lane. The contribution shall be paid in full prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupant'. -3 ~. . East Washington Place Page 31 50. Final sight distance calculations shall be provided: for the Johnson .Drive/Swim Center/Fairgrounds :intersection with. the public improvement plan application and are subject to the approval, of the City Engineer: All landscaping, fencing, etc. shall be designed and installed to preserve adequate sight. distance per City requirements`. 51. The final configuration of the. Johnson .Drive/Swim Center/Fairgrounds, including the need for and location of stop signs and stop legends shall be determined during review of the public improvement -plans 'and shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer. 52. The developer shall install an .enhanced crosswalk with in ground lighting and flashing signs, on the easterly leg, of the Johnson Drive/Swim Center/Fairgrounds intersection. The enhanced crosswalk shall be: shown on the Johnson, Drive public improvement plans. The final design is subject to the approval of the City Engineer. From the Fire Marshal 53. The "aisle" in front of all the buildings along the eastern portion of the project site (Buildings Al through ~S'10) should be widened from-Z8 feet to 30 feet to allow for reasonable FDC, PIV, and ladder truck access by fire apparatus. We may require an additional staging area for emergency vehicle access. 54. -The turn radii- at the intersections of streets and onste driveways (roads) within the project site will need to be adjusted to meet PFD ladder truck turning radius standards. 55. Roads and "aisles" -may need to be posted. with "No Parking -Fire Lane" signs and "red- curbing" will be required- where appropriate. The placement of the signs and red-curbing must be coordinated with the Fire Marshal's office. 56. Fire hydrants will need to be added along. Johnson. Drive and other areas of the project. Placement of the fire hydrants will require verification and coordination with the Fire Marshal's office prior to submittal of the improvement plants. 57. All commercial building/s (.or portions thereof) shall be protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system as required by the City of Petaluma Municipal Code. and shall conform to NFPA 13 requirements. The fire sprinkler system shall be provided with central. station alarm system designed in accordance with NFPA 72. A local alarm shall be provided on the- exterior of the building AND a normally occupied location in the interior of the building. All. systems require 3 set of plans to be submitted to the Fire Marshal's office for review and. approval. 58. Be advised; all fire hydrants must be installed, pressure tested, flushed, and fully operational prior to 'any combustible materials being, brought on site. East Washington Place Page 32 -3a From Water Resources 59. The developer shall dedicate to the City a 50' x 50' future well site about 250 feet south of building M6 subject to review and approval of the Public Works Director. The parcel shall have an all weather 15' wide access and utility easement connecting the parcel to Kenilworth Drive,. with a driveway cut. Stub in a LO" water main. from Kenilworth Drive to the Parcel. Stub in a 480 volt three phase 400 amp electric service to the parcel. 60. Replace all existing on-site sewer main. Extend the new ewer main to connect to Lindberg in Kenilworth Drive. 61. The existing sewer .main on the Bus Barn property needs to be cut off and revert to a private lateral with a new cleanout install on the upstream end. 62. At the point that the. sewer and storm drain mains enters the site from Kenilworth Drive (NW corner building M6) they hall become privately`maintained. - 63. The 12" water main.: loop ;fronting Highway 101 shall be fitted with DDCV assemblies at both ends and be privately maintained. 64. Locate all irrigation master meters along Kenilworth Drive. 65. Extend a future 6" reclaimed water main between Lindberg and East Washington Street. Stub services to boxes located 5 feet from each irrigation master meter. 66. The development shall connect to and cost share a portion of the new 18" water main'to be installed on Washington. Street. 67. Provide two .more combination fire /domestic water services to buildings S 1 and S2. 68. Separate gate valves at clusters per City Standards. 69. Comply with the City landscape ordinance. 70. Abandon old water and sewer connections to the site. 71. Relocate as needed utilities along the widened area of East Washington Street. From the Parks and Recreation Department 72. A landscape :improvement plan shall be submitted for review by City staff and the Department of Parks acid Recreation. The plan shall be approved prior to issuance of improvement plans for Johnson Drive and shall include the following: East Washington Place Page 33 ~-v3 a. Tiered landscape elements at sensitive locations where asphalt and parking are proposed in close vicinity to the pools as well as the separation. between swim center and skate park functions. These elements shall'include a combination of trees, shrubs and plantings that.-will serve. both as attractive landscape elements and as components to address potential impacts to the pools and active uses due to noise .and emissions from vehicles. b. Proposed trees shall be a minimum fifteen (15) gallon size, unless otherwise specified. Smaller -five (5) gallon size may be considered in areas not subject to high pedestrian access or based on site specific and. design ;purposes and larger (24" box sized) and installed to City planting and staking standards; trees may be required in highly visible areas; all shrubs shall be five gallon size. All planted areas not improved with a lawn or other groundcover material shall be protected with atwo- inch deep organic mulch as a temporary measure until the ground cover is established. c. All plant material shall be served by aCity-approved automatic underground irrigation system. d. Linear root barrier systems shall be noted for. trees near public .streets or walkways as needed, subject to staff review and approval. 73. Parking areas and parking stall details,including stall dimensions and location of handicapped parking. 74. Location off all bicycle' racks. Provisions for both indoor and outdoor racks shall be presented. 75. Location, height, and size of all proposed fencing, including post heights. Note that perimeter fencing should be of an open picket or wrought-iron design for visibility. 76. Location, dimension, and installation details of solar panels and pool covers. 77. Location and construction details of relocated concession area. 78. Alighting and photometric plan including all. exterior light locations and details of the proposed fixture type and lumens. Alllighting shall be glare-free, hooded, and downcast in order to prevent glare. 79. Proposed signage, including materials, sizes, dimensions, and location. Note that signs will be subjecf to a Sign Permit and all applicable provisions as stated in Chapter 20 of the Implementing 'Zoning Ordinance. 80. At the swim center entry, the curb areas immediately southeast. and southwest of the cross walk shall be identified as no parking; pick-up and drop-off only; including buses. ~-3y East Washington Place Page 34 81. Landscape,. signage, and potential secondary entry details for the corner of Kenilworth and Johnson. This should include double gates at the fence. 82. Landscape screening and buffers shall be employed at all parking areas and vehicle access points. 83. At the northwest. corner of the pool site, at the two planting areas. connected by the crosswalk, landscaping. should be designed and utilized as wind screening. This can be accomplished by non-vegetative means as well, and is subject to review and approval of Parks and Recreation. 84. Building Permits shall be obtained where required,. including, but not limited to, solar panels, fences over 6' 'in_ height, irrigation meters,, and related structures. 85. The Petaluma Swim Center shall be included on all site: sgnage, and specifically included on the northwest "B" sign or reimbursement shall be required for any sign placement that is on pool property. ' 86. The swim season can generally be identified as April through October. It is important that there be no interruptions to the season. Construction of proposed improvements to Johnson Drive and the Swim Center shall be conducted between.: September 1 Sand Apri115 to avoid construction impacts and. potential interruptions to center operations. Should this schedule prove infeasible, limited construction may occur during the swim season per consultation and written. approval from the Director .of Parks and Recreation. If interruptions are unavoidable, it is required that they be as early or late in the season as possible,. and thafithe schedule identify such 6-8 weeks in advance. Monetary damages will be assigned during periods of closure. From the Pedestrian and. Bicycle ;Advisory Committee (PBAC~ Note: All PBAC conditions of approval shall be addressed on the public improvement and building permit plans.. All required amenities shall be ,installed, constructed, inspected and accepted prior to acceptance of the public improvements, release of any surety or issuance of any certificates of occupancy. The exact final locations of the required amenities shall be subject to the approval by the City of Petaluma. Bicycle Parking 87. Building, S8 shall require a bike rack to accommodate at least 4 bikes, to accommodate bike/transit commuters using the transit mall. 88. The number of bicycle parking spaces provided shall be in accordance with the provisions as stated in Chapter 11.090 of the Implementing Zoning.. Ordinance. ~-~s East Washington Place Page 35 89. Short-term bicycle parking shall be installed as close to the main entrance of each store/office as possible.. Also consider placing racks under awnings/overhangs where possible to give extra protection from the weather. 90. Bicycle racks shall keep bikes upright by supporting the frame in two places, allow the frame and one or both wheels to be secured with a U=lock, be securely anchored or heavy enough that it cannot be stolen, and durable enough to resist being cut or vandalized. Please refer to the Bicycle.andPedestrian Plan for further design recommendations. Class I Shared Use Pathways 91. A Class I shared off-street pathway shall be installed along the south side of East Washington Street from Johnson/Ellis Streets to the southbound 101 on-ramp crosswalk. Class II Bicycle Facilities 92. A Class II bike facility shall be installed along the northern side of building S7 and S8 to Kenilworth Drive. This :Class II shall be given surface treatment to enhance visibility and shall be separated from motor vehicle traffic. Intersection Improvements 93. Traffic calming elements shall be placed in front of the plaza main entrance, and at both "pinch points" including; (1} bollards (ADA-compliant in their distance from each other) at the base of the overcrossing; (2) raised/marked paving; (3) stop signs and raised speed- bumps at the 101, over-crossing meets the delivery road and (4) stop signs for vehicles heading North and South (N/S) along the retail frontage road, where it meets the pedestrian plaza. 94. The two crosswalks along the route of the bike/pedestrian overpass near buildings S9 and S 10 shall be raised crosswalks with in-pavement. flashing lights triggered by motion detectors (instead of pushbuttons). Additionally, the applicant .shall install in-ground pavement lighting. with pole mounted flashers (trigger by button or motion} at the following locations: a. Kenilworth Drive and East Washington Street. b. Johnson Drive. crossing at the Fairgrounds/swim center access point. c. Kenilworth Drive and Johnson Drive. d. Kenilworth Drive and the project entrance at building S5. e: Kenilworth Drive pedestrian crossing at the southern end of the project. 95. Left turn traffic lanes shall. have bicycle sensitive loop detectors with stencils .showing the best location to place bicycle wheels to trip the detector. Through Travel East Washington Place Page 36 ~-~ 96. The applicant shall .install two-way stop signs at the frontage. road and the intersection of buildings S9 and 5.10. Bollards shall be installed at the base of the over-crossing. 97. A clearly marked. bicycle throughway from. the overpass/parking lot entrance to Kenilworth Road will be necessary for commuter bicycle through-traffic. 98. The applicant shall install a pedestrian route leading from the vicinity of the East Washington Street/SB 101 on-ramp to Building A1. Pedestrian friendly Infrastructure 99. The parking, areas. hall feature raised and marked walkways .for access to major site tenants, including buildings AT, M3-5, and M6. These pathways must have a minimum clearance width of six (6) feet between parked cars to allow movement of shoppers with carts and pedestrians/strollers. 100. The applicant shall install raised/colored pavement along the frontage road by the retail stores at the intersection with the pedestrian mall. Signs 101. The applicant shall install way 'finding signage before the intersection of Johnson & Ellis at East Washington Street, and on Kenilworth Drive,. to direct bicycle traffic to use the pedestrian overpass over U.S. 10.1 and discourage use of East Washington Street. 1'02. The applicant .shall install necessary signage on East Washington Street west of Johnson Drive, informing cyclists -and pedestrians to use Class I shared facility along the aquatics center and project frontage. 103. North of Building A1, the applicant shall .install signs indicating "employee and truck delivery passage only" to prevent public traffic from going to the west side of retail buildings. 104. The applicant shall install signage at the rear of project alerting thru-truck traffic to pedestrianslbicyclists using the Hwy 101 over crossing. 105. The applicant shall install warning. signs along the ped/bike corridor between Buildings S9 and ST0 to alert peds/bikes to upcoming motorist traffic. 106. The applicant shall install information and directional. signage at the intersection of Johnson and Kenilworth (such as the corrugated sign type used downtown) directing vehicles along Johnson to reach Buildings NI1-M6. The signs shall be located on private property, outside: the. public right of way. Glare free Lighting 107. Lighting shall be installed guiding the way to and near exterior bike rack/locker locations. -~~1 East Washington Place Page 37 108. All exterior lighting shall provide a "soft wash" of light against the wall and shall be hooded and directed downward with no direct glare into bicyclists/peds eyes and shall conform to city standards. Employee Showers/Lockers/Amenities 109. Employee showers and lockers shall be required for retail spaces over 10,000 square feet in accordance with the' policies and provisions of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Benches & Drinking Fountains 110. The applicant shall be responsible for installing water fountains between Buildings S9 and 510, and between Buildings S5 and S8. Incentives to Walk/Bicycle/Transit to Work 111. The applicant shall be encouraged to provide a document to the city naming a designated "transportation coordinator" describing specific incentives: for employees to walk, bicycle or to take transit, thereby encouraging alternatives to driving cars to this site. Examples include lending-bicycles for .short errands, monetary or other rewards for not driving, discounts for bicycling, formation of groups of employees who pledge to bicycle, walk, carpool or ride transit at~ -least once a week, etc. Applicant. ~sha~11 comply with Municipal Code 11.90." East Washington Place Page 38 =3~. bae ATT~CH~NIf NT E FISCAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR PROPOSED EAST WASHINGTON PLACE SHOPPING CENTER IN PETALUMA, CA Prepared for: City of Petaluma Prepared by: Bay Area Economics Headquarters 1285 66Yh Street Emeryville, CA 94608 January, 2009 Bay' Area Economics 510.547.9380 fax 510.547.9388 bael@bael.com bayareaeconomics.com ~~ I Table of Contents Executive Summary ..............................................................:............................... Background and Study Purpose ........................................................................................ i Key Findings .................:................................................................................................ ...i Introduction ..........................................................................................................1 Background and Study Purpose ..:.....................................:............................................ ..1 Project Description .....................................................:......................:............................ ..1 Approach ......................................:................................................................................. .. 3 Population and Employment Overview...........:.: .......::..........:............................4 Definition of the Trade Area .......................................................................................... .. 4 Population Trends ...........:::::........:................................................................................. ..6 Household Trends ..........:...:..:.........:.............................................................................. .. 7 Employment Trends .....................................................................:................................. ..8 Summary of Demographic and Economic Overview ......................:............................. .. 8 Retail Sales Analysis :...::........................::...:..:.:....:.:......................................... 10 Overall Retail Sales ........................................................................................................ 10 Per Capita Taxable Retail Sales .:....:.............................................................................. 13 General Merchandise Store Sales ........................................:......................................... 14 Home Furnishings and Appliances ...........................:.................................................... 14 Restaurant Sales .......................................................................:..................................... 17 Apparel Stores ................:............................................................................................... 17 Other Retail .................................................................................................................... l 8 Retail Sales Elsewhere iri the Trade Area ...................................................................... 19 Leakage Analysis ...........::...:..:.......:............................................................................... 21 Major Competing Retail Nodes in Petaluma ................................................................. 22 Inventory by Key Store Type ............................................:.........................:.................. 27 Inventory by Key Store Type .....................:................................................................... 27 Summary of Retail Sales Analysis .............................:................................................... 28 Retail Impacts Analysis ........::.................................:......................................... 30 Estimated Sales at Project Opening .........................:...............................'...................... 30 Capture of Leakage by Proposed Project .................................................:..................... 31 Capture, of Sales from Outsidethe: Trade Area ., .............................:.............................. 33 Capture of Sales from Other Outlets in the Trade Area ................................................. 34 Impacts of Proposed Project on Petaluma's Retail Environment .................................. 36 Opportunities. for Renewal and Growth ................:......:................................................. 36 Potential Negative Impacts of the Proposed Project on Existing' Retailers.. ......::........... 36 Overall Impacts on Retail Stores and.Nodes .................................................................. 39 Potential Cumulative. Impacts ..:.......:..:.......................................................................... 40 Summary of Impacts~on Existing Retailers ......................:............................................. 41 Employment Impacts....: ...:.............:.................................................................. 44 Employment ................................................................................................................... 44 Wages and Benefits .:...................................................................................................... 47 Summary of Employment Impacts ................................................................................. 49 ~~~ Fiscal. Impact Analysis ......:.........................:...................................................... 50 Overview .....................................................................:....:.............. ............................... 5 0 Projected .General Fund Revenues .........................................................................:....... 51 Projected General Fund Costs ........................................................................................57 Projected NetFiscal General Fund Balance ...................................................................62 Non-General f=und Revenues and Costs ............................................,........~.... 63 Development Impact-,.Fees..... ::.................................. ............63 Other Public Revenue Benefits .:....................................:.......::...:.. :.,.:........................64 Public Contributions"to,Proposed Project ............... .................................................:...66 Summary of Non-General Fund Revenues and Costs .................................................... 66 Appendices ...................,.....,...................................................:........................... 67 Executive S`ummarY Background and Study Purpose Regency Centers has submitted a proposal to the City of Petaluma-: for a large new .mixed-use project of approximately 380',000'square feet, including aregon-serving retail centerand commercial/off ce space. 'This proposed project is located at the Bast Washington.. Street exit from U.S. Highway 1.01, io the west of the highway and the south of East Washington. Concerned about the size and. scope of potential large-scale commercial developments in the City, the:Petaluma City Council recently passed a resolution requesting the preparation of a Fiscal and Economic Impact-Analysis (FEIA) for projects such; as East'Washington Place; to address issues of concern to: the City and its citizens. These .concerns fall into three areas: (1) impacts. onthe retail .market and.other retailers in Petaluma; (2) types of employment generated, including likely wages and benefits relative to a living wage; and. (3) fiscal impacts, comparing revenues generated with costs of services required by the new development. Key Findings The leakage analysis indicates that.Petaluma and the Trade Area are significantly under-retailed in many major retail categories. East Washington Place has the potential to capture a sizable portion of these sales, which are resident expenditures currently going elsewhere. While there is the possibility-of~some disruption'for existing retail outlets, growing.overall retail "demand' linked to the. area's gradual population growth should allow for eventual:re-tenanting of any short-term vacancies. East Washington Place should result in a net gain in retail employment estimated at 593 jobs in 2011. Within the project~'there are projected to be 721 permanentjobs, with 667 of those in the retail sector. Sales fosses at current. retailers are estimated to lead to a loss of 75 retail jobs in existing retail outlets in 2011. By 201'6, however, overall retail. sales, at existing outlets as a group would~be above 2008 baseline levels, leading to overall:;retail employment also above baseline levels; although in some retail sectors existing stores would Estill have lower employment than in 2008.. The permanent jobs in the project will be a mix of full and part-time typical of retail and office .employment. The Proposed Project. is also estimated to .generate 3'88 temporary' construction jobs, Target reportedly,pays competitive wages that are set _at or above the market average; and offers grange of benefit packages. Starting wages for some new hires in certain components parts of tlie`project;could be below the City's official Living Wage levels, but.East Washington Place's employmentstructure would not necessarily provide lower'wages or benefits than are.normally found for retail workers in the area. Average wages in Sonoma, County for most of the typical occupations in the project,are above Living Wage levels. E' Taking. into accountlocal'`tax and fee revenues generated by East Washington-..Place and city costs to provide services,'the project will generate an estimated net~:fiscal surplus of approximately $1,0 million `annually to the City of Petaluma General Fund, owing largely to the sales taxes generated.. This surplus could have a relatively sigrificantpositive impact on the City's overall .fiscal position. The City has no plans';to make any public contributions to assist in project development, acid development impact fees estimated:at $10.5 million should cover public costs associated with;the project. Because of its ,locafion'in aredevelopment area, East Washington Place will also generate property tax increment'revenues estimated at $472,000 annually .which the redevelopment agency can use for mprovem"ents in the area acid to provide affordable housing. In more detail, the firidmgs are as follows: • Based on fihe location.of competitors and the distance from which the anchor tenant Target can be expected to draw the majority of its customers, the Trade Area is assumed to include the City of Petaluma and surrounding areas ``in southern Sonoma County extending east. and including the City of'Sonoma.. This area is delineated in large part by the location+ofother°nearby Target stores. The Trade.Area:s characterized by gradual population, employment, and income growth overthe,long term. While the economy is currently in recession and extremely unsettled; the Bay Area continues to see high housing demand; and Sonoma County has not been as.impaeted as some other areas of the state bythe crisis in the housing market. The moderate population, household, and income growth all. indicate that -upon recovery, retail. sales are. likely to grow over the long term,. with increases in purchasing power in Petaluma; the Trade Area, and Sonoma County. • Petaluma and the Trade,Area are losing retail sales to other.communities for the categories of"General Merchandise°Stores.,(the category encompassing the. anchor tenant Target), Food. Stores, Home Furnishings and Appliances, :Building Materials, and Other Retail Outlets. • Overall, "on the: ground" retail conditions in Petalumaappear relatively healthy; there are few vacancies, although the. recent closures of Mervyns and Shoe Pavlion,and the impending closure of Yardbirds Home Depot wild cause a rise in vacancy, rates. Limited new'retail development in Petaluma in_recent years has constrained the retail market and kept vacancies low. • At stabilized performance levels, the Proposed Project will. achieve estimated total. `annual retail ~saTes~of approximately $119.2 million. Sales fat Target will constitute the largest share, at slightly more than one-third of this total. ® Much of the new retail space in East Washington Place would be supported by recapturing Trade Area resident sales currently going to other communities, especially ii ~~ in the general merchandise store category. Some shoppers from outside the Trade Area will also chop at the.Proposed Project, for.example, Novato residents wishing to frequent. a home electronics store, who might otherwise go to stores. in San Rafael. • East Washington Place will also capture some sales from existing local retail stores. For all retail sectors, this capture will lead to a net loss of $1`2.7 million, or less than one percent ofthe:2008 baseline for overall retail sales at the existing outlets. Over time, these losses will be offset by sales by generated through the overall.gradual growth in population in the Trade Area. ' • Existing apparel stores, general merchandise stores;, home furnishings/appliance stores, . and some stores in the other retail outlets category may continue to have lower than baseline sales, but overall demand increases in the Trade Area indicate the potential for re-tenanting by other retail types of'any vacated space. Since they overlap in market niche, the store most likely to be impacted by the new Target is the existing Kmart. However, even if the entire loss in general merchandise store sales for 2011 is assigned to Kmart, this store would still have sales above estimated national averages from Kmart, thus this store would not necessarily face closure-with Target:in operation in Petaluma. While Petaluma Plaza North is somewhat dated in appearance, it benefits from adjacency to Petaluma Plaza, which is completing a major upgrade with the,soon-to-be open Raley's, which will act as a major anchor, attracting shoppers to both centers even if the. Kmart closes, and.making the Kmart space more valuable to potential new tenants. While the approvals process could slow re-tenanting, the center couldend up with a stronger tenant than Kmart. Based on their anchor tenants, Deer Creek Village (the gther.large project currently under consideration by the City) and East Washington Place are targeted toward somewhat.dfferent and complementary-retail niches, and even slightly different geographic areas. This will lessen any cumulative impacts in Petaluma,. as the two projects recapture resident retail expenditures ~iri different market segments. While individual outlets might be impacted, the overall capture of existing market share is limited such~that the overall retail market should. be able to absorb these projects without the'prospect of long-term closures for existing retail outlets. •' While some sales may be captured from existing outlets, ,the project should result in a net,increase in the number of stores and in overall retail sales in Petaluma. • East Washington Place is estimated to result in a net gain of 593.retail jobs in the Trade A< rears 201'1: The Proposed Project is estimated to generate 388 temporary construction jobs, and 721 permanent jobs, with 667 of these in the retail sector: The project is expectedto capture:some sales from existing outlets, and those sales losses could`result in reduced employment, estimated at a7oss of75 .retail. jobs in existing retail outlets in 2011..By 2016, however,.retail sales in the universe of existing retail iii E- outlets.would be above2008 baseline levels; leading~to overall retail employment also above baseline levels; although some sectors for_existng stores would still have. lower employment than'in 20Q8~. Retail employmentcreated"bythe Proposed Project alone would be, greater than the increase previously projected by the:Association of Bay Area Governments for the City of Petaluma for the 20!TO to 201'5 .period. Of the permanent jobs, slightly more than;halfare projected to be full-time jobs; an esfimated250 of the total permanent jobs are associated.-with the Target store. Retail employment in.general is'ty„pified by a largecomponentofpart-time workers; the Proposed Project is riot extraordinary in its•m of:full;and' part-time retail jobs. While full-time work is often'sought; and some part-time workers.°would choose full-time work given the option, part=time work is more suitable for certain types of workers such as youths still in school, parents. balancing child rea"ring. and careers, and retirees seeking supplemental. income. • Ta"rget reportedly-pays competitive wages-chat .are set at or above the market average for jobs withsimilar"skills and responsibilities. Employeeearrings at Target and other tenants at East Washington Place would likely be: comparable to the prevailing market wages in thearea fqr similar types of employment:: The average wages for most occupations'Hkely to be found at East Washington Place exceed the City's Living Wage standard;,for employees without medical benefts. Food preparation grid serving_related occupations. have average wages below the•Li~ing Wage; but food'servers often earn tips that supplement ,their wage income. Starting wages for new retail hires could be below the living wage levels, butthe:Proposed Project's employment structure would not necessarlyprovide lower wages than are normally found for retail workers in the area. Target provides a range: of benefts for employees, including paid vacation days, a. broad health care .package: paid for in part by the.employer; a 401(k) plan with employer matching contributons;;an,employee assistance,program.covering avariety of potential employee needs; and,discounts:at the store for employees and their families. Benefit packages: for other tenant's in the Proposed Project would vary" by outlet and owner,. and could`vary from extremely limited or no benefits up to or beyond the level provided by Target. • `® Taking into account revenues generated and city costs to provide services, the proposed • . project.wllgenerate an estimated net fiscal surplus of apprgximately $1.O.~million - annually to the City- of_Pefaluma General -Fund, .owing largely to the sales taxes- ,generated. This surplus represents 2.8 percent ofthe City's current General Fund. _ ~" budget,°indicatingahat the; proposed project would have~~a relatively sigrrificarit~positi.ve . impact on the City's overall fiscal. position. a The City'"s development impact fees havebeen recently updated;so estimated.fees of •. ~• apprgximately $10:5 million should mitigate and cover public costs associated with the. iv Proposed Project. Since the project is in the Petaluma Community Development Area, the Petaluma Community Development Commission should also benefit substantially from the estimated= $472,000 in annual property tax increment, which can be used for improvements in the area as well as for affordable housing. The City will also benefit from the developer's plans to improve and dedicate Kenilworth Drive to the City. Currently, the City has no plans to make any public contributions such as land write- downs,. tax rebates or refunds, below-market or contingent loans to the project, or to pay for any other costs associated with the development of the project. v ~ Introduction Background. and Study Purpose The City of Petaluma has received a;revised application for the East. Washington Place development, an approximately 380;000 square-foot mixed-use center. comprising retail and office uses at the East Washington Street exit from U.S. Highway I01, to the west of the highway and the south of East Washington, on the site. of the recently demolished Kenilworth Junior High School. An Environmental ImpactReport (EIR) under the California`Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is currently being completed for the proposed project. Concerned about the size and scope of~tliis project and. other potential large-scale commercial developments in the City; the Petaluma City Couricil.passed Resolution Na 200$-189 N.C.S. requesting the preparatiori, of aFiscal and Economic Impact Analysis (EEIA) for projects such as East Washington Place, to address issues of concern to the City and its citizens. These concerns fall :into three areas: (1) impacts on the retail market and other retailers in Petaluma; (2) types of employment generated,. including likely wages and benefits relative .to a living wage; and (3) fiscal impacts, comparing revenues generated with costs of services required by the new development. The City of Petaluma has retained. Bay Area Economics (BAE) to undertake an FEIA for this project. B'AE aims to use the-best available information o assess these impacts; since BAE is also working on the urban decay/economic impact analysis as part of the EIR for this project, much of thenecessary information has already been gathered -for the retail market analysis portion of this;report. Inthis report, BAE will supplement that analysis with additional review of the employment and fiscal impacts that are beyond.the-scope of the EIR. It should be noted that BAE's analysis ;uses "the most recently available::information at the time of analysis (December 2008), and as a result the; information here may vary somewhat from that found in other studies. Use of the most recent`information represents,a`reasonable effort to establish baseline conditions. BAE.recognizes that over the course of the"FEIA:process, conditions may change rapidly; especially in the current economic environment; BAE, attempts to take that into consideration, but future economic conditions may vary from those assumed here. Project Description The East Washington Place :project (also referred to in this report as the "Proposed Project") consists of a mixed-use center of approximately 380;000 square feet. at the East Washington Street exit from U:S. Highway 10;1., to the west of the highway and-the south of East Washington, on the site of the :recently :demolished Kenilworth Junior High School. 'The Proposed Project' includes a;mix of`"retail iri several large spaces, with a major anchor with 130;762 square .feet of enclosed space plus: an 8;089 square-footgarden center; for a total of'138,851 square feet of anchor space. Other major tenant spaces range from 1:5;000'to 42,000 square feet; there are also smaller shop spaces scattered throughout the project, ranging: from. 5,000 to 10;800 square. feet. . Retail space in the project otals361,951 square feet. In addition,-the project contains 1:6;000 squaie::feet of office space above two of the shop spaces at the corner~of East. Washington Street and Kenilworth Drive. ~~~ At this time, the only tenant confirmed to BAE is the anchor store, Target. The project sponsors also report as potential tenants an electronics store and a porting goods store, although specific retailers have not been confirmed. Additionally, based on its leakage analysis (see Retail Sales Analysis chapter of this report), and a mix typical of centers of this type, BAE has made assumptions about some ofthe other available space. It should be noted that the actual tenant mix may vary somewhat from what is postulated here, but this assumed mix provides a reasonable basis to assess the potential impacts of this project for this FEIA. For the purposes of this analysis,, the Proposed Project is. configured as shown in Table 1. Table 1: East Washington Place Proposed Retail Configuration Square Location Type Feet Tenant Al Anchor Indoors 130,762 Target GC Garden Center 8,089 Target Total Anchor Space 138,851 M1 Major 15,000 M2 Major 24,000 Home Electronics M3 Major 20,000 M4 Major 20,000 Apparel M5 Major 18,300 M6 Major 42,000 Sporting Goods S1 Shops 6,000 S2 Shops 10,000 S3 Shops 8,300 Furniture/Home Furnishings S4 Shops 8,700 S5 Shops 6,000 S6 Shops 8,300 Restaurant S7 Shops 9,000 S8 Shops 6,700 Home Electronics S9 Shops 5,000 S10 Shops 5,000 S11 Shops 10,800 Specialty Food Total Other Retail Space 223,100 Total Retail Area 361,951 01 Office (2nd Level) 6;000 02 Office (2nd Level) 10,000 Total Office Area 16,000 Total Center Area 377,951 All sizes are approximate; as reported on the most current available site plan. Tenant.mix is based on information from Regency Centers, potential gaps in the local retail mix highlighted by the leakage analysis in this report, and typical tenants found in a center of this type. Sources: Re enc Centers; C .of `Petaluma; Ba Area Economics. 2 /~~ Approach This analysis. assumes that the project will be fully developed;and occupied by the beginning of 201.1._ Perthe Council Resolution:regarding FEIAs, the analysis:also looks at a point in time five years:after the, assumed project opening date. The analysis also assumes'that this will be a fully functioning center, with the project's outlets achieving a level of revenue reflective of state and national. averages or benchmarks for each sector represented in the proj'ect.. This is considered a reasonable anddefensible basis upon which to evaluate the potential-economic, employment, and fiscal impacts of the proposed project. /~ ~~ ~' Population and Employrr>ie;nt Overview This section presents background information on current and'projeeted demographic and. economic.conditions~in Petaluma and the.East.Washington P1ace~Trade Area. Developingan economic and demographic profile of Petaluma and the Trade Areawill provide background information that will assist in estimating future retail sales and;in assessing the potential impacts of the Proposed Project on other. retail outlets and centers, as well as .the employment and fiscal impacts of the project.. Data sources include the U.S. Census. Bureau,•the California Employment. Development Department (EDD); the: California Department of Finance; the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABQG), and! Claritas, a private vendor providing estimates of current and future demographic conditions:. Definition of the Trade Area Th_e Trade Area has been defined based on the; area from which the'Targetanchor tenant is likely to draw most of its customers. This;area has been bounded based largely.on tle'location of other nearby Target stores, oritheassurrptionthat shoppers would tend to go to tle'Target closest'to their residence'(see Figure l,). The Trade.Area consists of Petalum"a;and surrounding areas, extending east through the City of Sonoma, south to the border with.Marin County,,and to a very limited distance to the north and west due to the location of other Target-stores nearby:in Rohnert Park and Santa Rosa. This'Trade Area is used for all the'retail~uses irithe center; because of nearby retail node§ in Novato, Rohnert Park; and Santa Rosa, this is the area that would be served. by mostregion-serving retailers based'in Petaluma in a center';of tliistype. The Trade Area is defined using Census Tracts, and a listing:ofthe'Tracts can. be found in Appendix A. This represents the level'of geography providing the "best fit" within the constraints of available demographic data. 4 c~ ~ Figure 1: East Washington Place Trade Area Sonoma City ~~211 ~~ X37; ~~ Froject<$ite~ Trade Area City.ofiPetaluma -' Marin County Cities Napa"County-Cities City of Sonoma Other Sonoma County Cities 0 2 4 8' Miles 5 ~-~3 Population Trends Short-Term Trends. The Trade Area is undergoing gradual population growth, as shown in Table 2. Based on estimates from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the Trade Area gained 5,865 persons from 2000 to 2008, with additional growth of.2,605 persons expected by 2011 (the assumed first"full year of project operation), and growth of an additional 2,428 persons five years after the first year of project operation (2016). Slightly over half of the Trade Area population lives within the City of Petaluma. Table 2: Population Trends,. 2000-2016 Average Average Annual Annual Change Change 2000 2008 (b) 2000-2008 201'1. (b) 2018 (b) 2008-16 Petaluma 54,548 58,925 1.0% 61;034 63,136 0.9% Trade Area (a) 94,835 "100,700 0.8% 103,305 105,733 0.6% Sonoma County (b) 458,614 496,756 1.0% 511.,713 ~ 524,855 0.7% California (c) 33,871,648 38,049,462 1.5% 39,609,709 42,079,010 1.3% (a) Trade Area is 17 Census Tracts as shown in Figure 1 and Appendix A. (b) Data point for this year is interpolated from ABAG data for 5-year intervals assuming a constant annual compound growth rate, with the exception of California, where data points are directly from DOF, Report E-5 for current year', and Race/Ethnic Population with Age and Sex Detail, 2000-2050, July 2007 for future years. 2000 data from U.S. Census. Sources: 2000 U.S. Census; Assocation;of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Projections.2007; Califomia State De artment of Finance DOF , 2007 8 2008; BAE, 2008. Long-Term Trends.. ABAG projections estimate that Petaluma and. the Trade Area will continue to show gradual population'growfh, as will,Sonoma County (see Table 3). Nearby Novato in Marin County is projected to show the same pattern.. Petaluma's population is projected to reach 67,500 in 2030 and the Trade Area's population is projected to reach 1.11.;279 that same year. Table 3: Long-Term Population Projections • Annual " % Change 2000 2005 2010 2015 .2020 2030 2010-2030 Petaluma 54,548 56,500 60,600 62,800 64,500 67,500 0.9% Novato 47,630 50,700 52,500 54,300 55,800 58,000 0.7% Trade Area (a) 94,835 97;607 102,816 105,286 107,538 111,279 0.7% Sonoma County 458,614 478,800. 509,100 522,300 535,200 558,900 08% (8) Trade Area:is 17 Census Tracts as shown in Figure 1 and Appendix A. Source: Association of Bay Area Governments Projections 2007. 6 r/ 1 ~ I.T Household Trends Hosehold,Growth. Asrshown:in Ta>jle 4, the rates of`household.~growth in Petaluma and the Trade Area; mirror the respective: population growth rates.., The Trade Area contains an estimated 38,925 households as of 2008, with an increase to 40;04,1 households projected by 2011 and 41,461 households by 2016. Table 4s Household. Trends, 1990-20:10 ~ Average :Average. Average Annuat Annual Annual Change Change: Change 2000 2008. (b) 2000-08 2011 (b) 2008=1A 2016,(b) 2011-16 Aetaluma 19,932 21;739 1.1.% :22,582 1.3% 23,665 0.9% Trade.. Area (a) 36,232 38,925 0.9% 40,041 0.9% 41.,461 0.7% Sonoma County 172,403 188;240 1.1°1° 194,054 1:0% 201,132 0.7% (a) Target Trade Area is 17 Census Tracts~as shown in Figure 1 and Appendix A. (b) Data point for this year is irterpolated from ABAG data fors-year intervals assuming a constant annual compound growth rate. 2000 data from 17.S. Census. Sources: 2000 lj:S. Census; Association<of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Projections 2007; BAE, 2008. .Household Income. Household incomes and resulting consumer btzyitig power are key factors in assessing the poientai for additional .retail development. -The Trade Area shows slightly lower income levels than the Bay Area, with a mean household income of $93,366 in 2008, in comparisonto $100,193'for the nine-county ABAG region (see Table 5). Petaluma's mean household income is only slightly flower than the Trade Area's wffile Sonoma County as a whole has a 2008 mean household income of $85;036, ABAG projects very .gradual increases in household income over the next several years. Table 5: Mean Household Income' Households 2000 2008' 2011 2016 Petaluma (a} $90,700 $95,844 $98,126 $102;462 Trade Area (b) $89,644- $93,366 $95;257 $99;140 Sonoma.County $82,800 :$85;036 $87,639 $92;479 ABAG"Region (c) $104,000. .:$100,193 $103,177 $108;755 In constant 2005 dollars (a) Sphere-of influence; whichsis a slightly larger area than. the incorporated City. (b) Trade Area is 17 Census Tracts,as shown in Figured and Appendix _A. (c) Nine-countyABAG region includes Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San: Francisco, San Mateo; Santa Clara, Solano, and',Sonoma Counties., Sources: Association ofBayAreB;Govemments (ABAG) Projections 2007; BAE, 2008: All income estimates in constant 2005 dollars. Estimates for 2008, 20011, and 201.6 based on ~intarpolationrof'ABAG five-year=interval data. 7 ~. Employment Trends Employed Residents and Unemployment. Employment can bean indcator.of regional buying power; employed workers and their households will. have higher°incomes and expenditures than unemployed: workers and their households. Growth in the employed' labor force of an area can indicate increased buying power. As shown in Figure 2 and Appendix B, long-term trends. show an increase in the number of employed residents in Sonoma County, with'the'. number of employed residents ranging from 244;600 in 2000, declining to 240;900 in 2003, and then increasing to 250;500 in 2007. Unemployment was.at only 3.4 :percent in 2000, and then peaked. at 55 percent in 2003; with a subsequent decline to 4.4 percent.:for'20,0,7'. Petaluma has tracked at slightly lower unemployment percentages, with between 29;800rand 31;000 employed persons in the years from 2000 through 2007: The most recent data from 2007 and the most recent month, November 2008, reflect the economic. downturn, with an,increase in unemployment as the economy tightens, although the estimated size of the employed atior force: continues to grow. Unemployment_in November 2008 was measured at 5.9 percent in:Petaluma and 6.5 percent in Sonoma County, and recent;frends indicate that the number of unemployed in Sonoma County is likely to continue increasing in the:near'term. Over the long term; the trend has been toward an increased number of residents in the labor force and employed, with unemployment trending along with national cycles. of the economy. Employment by Sector. 1Vlost:of East Washington Place will consist of retail outlets. Retail employment.in Sonoma Cburity; at :24,,100 jols,.makes up 123 percent of the County's overall employment (see Appendix F for details). This is a slightly;ligher proportion than statewide, where 1"0.9'percent of workers are'iri the retail sector. The Proposed Project will. also have workers in theleisure and hospitality°sector (restaurant workers), as well as employment in professional and business services or other off ce-related sectors. Summary 'of Demographic. and Econornic Overview The Trade Area, which includes-the cities of Petaluma and'Sonoma andsurrounding unincorporated areas, is undergoing gradual population and household growth. It is estimated the Trade Area will have 103,305 persons and 40;04.1 households by 201`L. Long term growth is expected to slow, with the Trade Area projected to have a population of l l 1-,279 in 2030: The Trade:Area exhibits,'a 2008 estimated mean household income of $93,366 (incomes in constant 2005 dollars); with modest growth to $95,257"by 2011. Sonoma County over tlie--long term has shown an, increase in the number of employed residents, withtdeclnes and;inereases~following national and regional economic trends. The most recent ,data from. November 2008 reflect the increasing unemployment as the economy stalls,, with uneriployment~at 5.9 percent; although the estimated size ofthe employed labor force continues to grow. ~. 'lu While currently the economy is in recession and extremely unsettled, the Bay Area continues to see high housing demand, and Sonoma County has not been as impacted as some other areas of the state by the crisis in the housing market. The gradual population, household,.and income growth all indicate that upon recovery, retail.. sales are likely to grow over the long term, with increases in purchasing power in Petaluma, the Trade Area, and Sonoma County. Figure 2: Employed Residents and Unemployment Rate City of Petaluma 35;000 ,~ __ _, . 7:0% ~ 30;000 ~` f-i. - _'-; "~ '=; [ - ~-~R' 6'0% tY ~ 25,000 - - - '5.0% a ~~ ~ 20 000 - - %~ 4:0% oT , ~ ~ 15,000 ."~`. - - - 3:0% ~ ,000 - 2.0% ~ n 10 . w 5,000 - 1,0% " 0.0% aNi o^ O~ o N ~Y N~ N N ~4 N~ N °-[7°° Employment + Unemployment Rate Sonoma County 350;000 ~ 7.0% y ur 300,000 - - - 6.0% ~ 250,000 . - is=='^`- _=-t_ 5:0% aNi 200,000 ~- - 4:0% o ~ n. ~ 150,000 - - -- - 3.0% ~ o ~ g 100,000 - 2.0% ~ E c ~ 50,000 -r ,~~ _ ;' 1.0% w - ~ ~ -~ I L i ~~ 0.0% ~ Oo OOh, N ~0 ~O~ No N ~Ory ~ ti N N N -i- Employment -e-Unemployment Rate Data presented are for residents of the area by place of residence, not workers by place of work. Annual data are annual averages. For detailed data, see Appentlix B. Sources: California;Em to ment Develo ment De artment; Ba Area Economics, 2008. 9 Retail Sales Analysis This section examines retail trends in Petaluma, the Trade Area, and .Sonoma County. For comparative. purposes; data from other nearby cities and the State of California are also presented. The analysis covers the major tenant types considered for the Proposed Project, as well as generally con"sidering other categories ofaikely tenants. Overall retail. sales trends in Petaluma, the Trade Area, and Sonoma County are examined, as are trends for general merchandise stores and other major store categories assumed,as potential tenants for the Proposed Project. Comparative data for Novato; Rohnert Park, and California are also presented. Summing up the overall retail analysis is a leakage calculation for the Trade Area; focusing on the store categories assumed as potential tenants in the.Proposed Project. Finally, t11is section concludes with an inventory of key competitive existing retail outlets in Petaluma and the Trade Area, by store type and center location. Overall Retail Sales As shown in Figure 3 and Table 6; over the last decade, Petaluma's taxable retail salesZ have grown. at a,faster rate than population. Taxable retail sales in 1997 were approximately $505 million (all sales here presented in constant 2007 dollars unless otherwise noted), and grew to approximately $758. million'in 2007 for an increase of 50 percent, while population only grew approximately 14 percent: The largest increases were between 1997 and 2000., After reaching a ,peak of $794 million in 2005; sales have been declining more recently, with a more substantial drop-off between 2006 and 2007. Novato has shown a similar overall increase in taxable retail. sales relative to population; albeit not quite as pronounced. Between 1997 and 2007, taxable retail sales in Novato grew 38 percent, while population increased' only 17 percent. IriRohnert Park; sales increased 61 percent from 1997 to 2007; while population only increased six percent. Novato sales have not fallen off as much as in Petaluma, reaching a peakin 2006 with a minimal decline in 2007..The pattern of decline in Rohnert Park mirrors that of Petaluma. Overall Petaluma's taxable retail sales remain above these two nearby cities; 2007 Petaluma ales of $758 million were above Rohnert Park's sales of $574, million acid Novato's sales of $595 minion. However, while overall Petaluma is showing strong retail sales, 42 percent of its growth has been in the automotveaector; where the City shows extremely strong sales. Limiting the analysis to the major categories suitable for. tenancy at East Washington Place by excluding the automotive and building:maferials~sectors presents a differentcomparative picture. For the suitable sectors, Z In California, `the State Board of Equalization provides retail sales data by store type for most counties and for larger cities. This is the most up-to-date and reliable source available, but it only inclu8es taxable sales. Most food items, prescription drugs, and certain other items are exempt from sales tax, so the reported taxable sales data exclude these non-taxable sales. to g -l. Petaluma'shows2007 sales of only $355 million, compared to $405 million in Novato and $431 million in Rohnert Park (see Table 6). By comparison, Santa Rosa has 2007 taxable sales in these categories of nearly $15 bllion,;likely due to its larger population base and~the regional draw of its broader range of established' retail outlets, including the two malls. T Sales in 2007 $000 (a) (b) (c) ApparelrStores General Merchandise Stores 'Food Stdres Eating and. Drinking Places - Nome:Fumishings and Appliances Building Materials Motor Vehicles and Parts Service Stations Other'Retail Stores Retail' Stores Total Sales Petaluma .Novato Rohnert Park ~ Sonoma Coun $65,163- $26,815 # $258,991 $51,054 $1,75;419' $2:17,032: $84.5;947 $58;100 $33,440:. $37,17.0 $398,084 $84,687 $69;521 $25;291 $592,801 '$13;324 $12;650 $40,21'1 $222;132 $46;226 $25;356 $26,206 $611,581' .$268,358 $98,845 $27;94J. $1;033,898 $87,978 $66;375 $38,814 $582;426 .$83,053 $82;040, $61.;21:9 $858,737 $757,943 $595;461 $573;890. $5,404,597 Washington Place Retail"Types'. (d) . $355,381 $404,885 $43U;923 $3,176,692 Sales per Capita;in 2007 $ (c) Apparel Stores General Merchandise Stores Food Stores Eating Arid Drinking Places Home Furnishings and Appliances Building Materials Motor Vehicles and Parts Service-Stations ' Other Retail Stores Retail Stores Total (b) Petaluma Novato. Rohnert 'Sonoma Park' ~ Goun $1,148- $508 # $540 $900 $3;326 t $5,074 $1;764 $1,024. $634 $8(i9 $830 +$1-,492 $1;318 $1„760 $1,236 $235 $240 $940 $463 $815 $481 $1.,782 $1,275 $4,729 $1,874 $653 $2,1'55 $1,550 $1,259 $907 $1,214 $1;46.4 $1„650' $1,;431,. .$1,790 $13,357 .$11,291 $13;417 $11,267 Easti Washington. Place: Retail Types (d) $6,263 $7,677 $1`0,075 $6;623 Population (e) 56,743 52,737 42,772 479,668 (a); Retail §ales have been adjusted'to 2007 dollars based on the Taxable;Sales Deflators calculated by the State Board of;Equalization„(BOE): (b).Analysis excludes; all non-retail,outlets~,(business and personal services).reporfing.taxable-sales. (c); A, #"sign indicates data supressed to preserve confidentiality due to.fou~.or fewer"outlets `or sales. of more'than 80% of he category in ohe,store. Suppressed sales have been com6ined.with Other Retail Stores:. (d) Excludes Building Materials', MotorVehicle; and Service Station categories. (e) Population from State Department of Finance;.mayvaryfram othersou[ces, Sources;, .State Board oPE ualizafion, :State De artmenf of Finance; Ba Area Economics; 2008. 11 vv~-~`,F V Salesrand $1,000,000 $900000 $800,000 aNi $700,000 R rn $600,000 ,~ $500,000 $400,000 $300,000 $200,000 $100,000 $0 $1, 000, 000 $900,000 N is $800;000 N ',~ $700;000 N $600,000 a, ~ $500,000 x ~ $400,000 $300,000 $200,000 n i ~ --- ---- -- -- 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 '2005 2006 2007 $100,000 $0 -1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006: 2007 100, 000 90, 000 80,000 0 70,000 a 60,000 a R 50,000 ~ 40, 000 m a 30,000 0 20,000 v 10,000 0 100, 000 90,000 80,000 C O 70,000 is 7 60,000 e a 50,000 0 io 40,000 z 30,000 c a 20,000 v 10, 000 0 $1,000,000 ~_ _. -- ------ - --- - 100,000 $900,000 - - - 90,000 N C A $800,000 - - - - - - - - .80,000 ° CA ,. A '« $700,000 - - - - 70,000 0 ~ .$600,000 - -,- - - - - - - - - 60,000 a Y d $500,000 - - - 50,000 a K --- ~ m ~ $400,000 - - - 40,000 t $300,000 ~ - - - - 30,000 ao' $200,000 ~ - - - - - - - - - 20,000 Y .$100,000 ~ - - - - - - - - - - ' 10,000 v ~~__. 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 ..2004 2005 2006 2007 -o--Total Taxable RetaiLSaliis. - Population Notes: P,opulatidn'data"from$tateTDepartment of Finance. May vary from other sources. Sales here areaaxa6le sales only, andexclude~mostfood'salesas'well.as prescription drugs and certain other items. Sales are presented in 2007 dollars. For'detals, see;Appendix E. Sources: State Board `of Equalization;.State Department of Finance; Bay Area Economics,.2008. IZ _ ~O Per Capita Taxable Retail Sales Per capita retail sales are an.indicator of the relative strength of a city as a retail destination; other factors being equal, higher: per capita sales relative to the region point toward attraction of shoppers from outside the city: As shown in Figure 4 and Table 6 above, Petaluma's per capita sales in the, key retail categories are an indicator of the city's weakness as a destination for non- automotive retail shopping. While Novato and Rohnert Park,show sales per capita above Sonoma County for those categories (noting of course that Novato is not in xhe County), Petaluma's key category per capita sales in recent years have been consistently at or slightly below the same levels as Countywide, indicating that the City is not doing as well as the other cities at amacting shoppers from outside the City, and is likely even losing retail sales as Petaluma residents shop elsewhere in the region. In the; early part of this decade, Rohnert Park saw a sharp increase in per capita sales, indicating increasing.c.apture from outside the city and enlarging its share of regional sales, but more recently sales have declined slightly. While not at the levels of Rohnert Park, Novato has consistently performed above Sonoma County and Petaluma. Figure 4: Comaarative Analysis, Per Capita Taxable Retail Sales for Key Retail Categories $12,000 N $10,000 fn ~ $8,000 m K $6,000 R H l6 Y ~ $4,000 U m a $2,000 $0 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 -Petaluma --Novato -~r3-RohnertPark -«~.~n-SonomaCounty Notes:.lhcudes only `categories of 7etail outlets likely to locate in EasYWashington Place. ~ ExGudes stores in the building materials and automotive-related categories: Population data from State Department of Finance, and may vary from.othen sources (e:g.,,ABAG). Sales here are4axable sales only, and exclude most grocery sales as welLas prescriptioh~drugs grid certain. other items. Sales are presented in 2007 dollars. For details, see Appendix C. State Department of Finance;. Bay Area Economics, 2008. 13 1.i ~~'6 General IVlerchandise Store Sales Petaluma's relative weakness as' a`retail destination in comparison with its neighboring cities is very pronounced in general merchandise sales; as shown. in Figure 5. 'On aninflation-adjusted basis, general' merchandise store taxable Gales in 2007 were lower than a decade earlier. Sales peaked.,at $68 million in2001, :declining to $5.1 million in 2007. Some.of this decline might be due to the shifting of sales to Kohl' , which the State Board ofEqualizaton classifies as an 3 apparel store despite its similarity to Ivlervyns in carrying apparel.. and housewares. In contrast to Petaluma, general merchandise~~"store taxable sales in Novato ate much higher, at.$175 million in 2007, an increase of 21 percent, over 1997, and Rohnert Park sales are. similarly high. The substantially lower general merchandise store, sales in-.Petaluma cannot be accounted for by Kohl's alone capturing general. merchandise store sales;- one .key factor is certainly the presence of Costco in both Novato and Rohnert Park; these stores are very high sales.tax generators. Figure 5: Taxable Sales Trends for General Merchandise Stores in Petaluma, Rohnert Park, and Novato N $250,000 N m $225,000 0 in $200,000 m H $175,000 ~o z $150,000 U in $125,000 ~, $100,000 m ~ $75,000 m $50,000 x $25,000 R ~ $~ 1997 1998 1.999 2000 2001 2002-.2003 2004. 2005 2006 2007 -~-Petaluma -~-,Novato -~--Rohnert Park Notes: Sales tiere:are taxabie sales' only,; and exclude mostgrocery sales as well as presc and certain other items. Sales are presented in 2007 dollars. For details, see Appendix C~ State Department of 2008.. Home Furnisfiirigs 'and'. Appliances The Proposed Project may incltide`at least orie major store this category,:such as;an electronics outlet.. Historically; Petalutita las fared better than Novato for this overall category, but the gap 3 THe;Mervyns chain;'including the Petaluma store, went outof business atthe end of 2008, so sales in the general merchandis_e,category may be continuing to trend lower in Petaluma. 14 _ r a~ has.narrowed in recent years; in 2007 Petaluma~had $133 million in. sales in this category, compared with .only $12.7 million in Novato. However, .inflation-adjusted sales have declined in Petaluma since 1997; while increasing slightly in Novato.Rohnert Park,., while showing much volatility in'this category over the decade, .has .consistently outperformed.. both Petaluma and Novato, more so in recent years. In 2007, taxable retail sales fofhome furnishings and appliances in Rohnert Park were $402 million. Figure 6: Taxable:Sales Trends for Home'Furnishings andAppliance Stores in Petaluma, RohhertPack,_and Novato $so,ooo rn $50,000 - rn m c ~ H N $40,000. .E m , ~ w m y $30;000 _ _ E ~ o ~ = A $20;000 ~c v -¢ ~ a ~ ~1-~ ~ $10;000 ~ ..~~]--f~ ~ ' -f-~--~---1.`'--W }---%~ $0 , 1997 1;998 1999 .2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 -i7`Petaluma -~-1~-Novato -----RohnertPark Notes: Sales here are~iazatile sales only; and exclude most grocery-sales as.well;as prescription drugs and certain othe~'items; Sales;presented'in 2007 dollars. For details, see Appendix G. Sources: State Board of`E ualization;.State De artment of Finance; Ba Area Economics, 2008. On a per capita basis for this category, Petaluma lags the County, as shown above in Table 6._ Per capita taxable sales; in 2007 in :tfie;home furnishings and appliances category in the City are $235, compared with $463 for, Sonoina~County overall. In contrast; per capita sales in Rohnert Park are $940. These .data indicate`tfiat forfhis xetail category, Petaluma shoppers are likely shopping elsewhere for goods. BAE's f eld work confirms the limited number of home furnishings` and appliances retail outlets in Petalurria. This category,is broken out into household home furnishings and household :appliance categories below to Table 7 for. Petaluma and .Sonoma County.4 As shown, Petaluma appears to have weak per: capita sales in bothsubcategories, but the difference is more pronounced for the`household. appliance category'which includes electronics stores, where per capita sales in Petaluma are only $4'3, or only°37,percent of the County level of $116 per person.. Note, that;because, of data,.availability'issues, the time period for Table 7 includes 4`h quarter 2006 through 3.`d quarter 2007 instead of calendar year 2007. 15 C.~ " , Ta61e'7.: Detail for Selected Other'Retail Store Cateao~ies Period:CoVered is 4th Quarter 06`through 3rd Quarter 07 Total Taxable'Salesin 2007 $000 Household and Home Furnishings: Household Appliance Dealers. Total from"Home Furnishings/Appliances.GrouP. Gifts, Art, Novelties' 'Sporting Goods Florists Stationery and Books Jewelry Office Supplies, Computer'Stores Packaged;Liquor Stores Second,Hand Merchandise Total from Selected Other Retail PerCapita Taxable Sales in 2007.$ ' Household and Home-Furnishings Household Appliance Dealers Total from Home Furnishings/Appliances Group Gifts, Art,.Ndvelties :Sporting Goods Florists - Stationery and' Books Jewelry Otce Supplies, Computer •Stores Packaged Liiauor~Sto~es Second Hand Merchandise Total from Selected Other Retail Petaluma ..;Sonoma Coun $11;464 $177;1, 76 $2;460 "'.$55;822. $13',924 $233,048 $3;522. $25,554 $7,990' $78,320 $4;585 $16;792 $7;184- $52;29.5 $1.,293 ~ $23,543' $1;0;857` $173,497 $1;745 $56,789. $1.;924 $14,1'13" $39;100 $440,903. Petaluma Sonoma Coun $202 $369: $43 !$116 $245 '.$486 $62 $53 $141 $163. $81' ~ $35 $12T $109. $23 $49 $191 $362 $31 $118. $34 $29 $689, $919 Population 56;743 Includes store subcategories for Other Retail where detail is available- categones not listed are unavailable dLe to disclosure issues. Sources: State Board of E ualization; Ba Area Economics, 2008.. 479;668 iluma. Store Addtional~detal for electronics and;appliance stores only.is also`available from the 2002 Economic',Census; and is shown in Appendix D. This confirms that Rohnert Park.is outperforming Petaluma and Novato and Sonoma County overall for the home furnishing:and applances;cafegory:, For appliance' and electronics stores, this pattern also :holds, with Rohnert Park annual per°capita sales at`•$527, compared with$306` in Petaluma, only $148 in Novato, and $45q for Sonoma:Gounty.. 'Thus; for this subcategory Petalutna,likely is losing sales to other ,nearby communities, particularly Rohnert Park; and'also to the destination retail concentrations in ;Santa Rosa;and,San.Rafael. The lack of a major store in this category in.Novato iridicate's that ,this is one store type where shoppers from that city might be attracted to such an outlet iri ;Petaluma.. ~ . 16 .a ;Restaurant°Sales BAE.has assumed at least one restaurant will tenant a space in the ;center; it would be extremely .unusual for a centerof this size not to Have at least one such establishment. The design.ofthe center makes it likely that thi's wotild be a sif-down type restaurant rather than a fast food franchise: As shown in Figuie'7-and Table.6,'1?etaluma has shownsliglitly higher sales than Novato. and RohnerE Parkin this, category. In 2007, Eetalurra had inflation-adjusted taxable sales in'the eating and drinking places category of $85 million, compared to. $70 million in Novato and $75 million in;Rohnert Park., On a per capita basis, Petaluma. is performing above the level of Sonoma County; Pefaluma's;2007taiable restaurantsales are $°1,492` per`capita, compared with $.1,236 countywide. Rohnert;Parkshojws sales above Petaluma, while Novato lags. Figure;7: Taxable Sales Trends for;Eating ~ Drinking.Places in Petaluma, Rohnert Park. `and .Novato $90;000 $80,000 ~ $70,000 y $60;000 .~ R $50;000 ~ $40,000 N ~ $30;000: m .c $2Q;000 R $10,000 $0 1997 1998 '0999 '2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Petaluma --~-Novato ""_-- RohnerEPark Notes: Sales here aye 4azatile sales only„and`eicclude most grocery sales as weil~as prescription drugs and, certain other items. Sales p~esenfed. in 2007 dollars. For details-,.see Appendix C. Sources: State Board of E Lalization;`State De "artment of Fihance; Ba Area Economics'; 2008. Apparel Stores Petaluma;las outperformed Novato and Rohnert Park in the Apparel Store retail category, as shown in Figure 8. Petaluma has 2007 per capita apparel store taxable sales of $1,148, compared with only $54,0 for Sonoma County overall. The gap between Petaluma and Novato has widened in recent,ycarss. due°to the~opening of Kohl's, which caused:a considerable jump in apparel store . sales `,in Petaluma, :However, -per capita apparel store sales iri Petaluma, were higher than the other ' two; cities even:before Kohl's opened, probably due to the presence of the outlet mall in Petaluma. 5 Apparel store sales are noilQnger;reported.separately forRohnert Park due fo`BOE disclosure rules, but it is'urilikely they, have increased substantially since the'Other Retail category (with which apparel sales have been`combined) ~lias not, shown a significant increase in sales since.2003': 17 ~. ~~~. Figure 8: Taxable Sales Trends for Apparel. Stores in Petaluma, Rohnert Paris, rand iVovafo , $70,000 ____~ ,~_~_..__--- -- -------_ $sti,ooo - - - - N / $50,000 -- - ~,r--`~ rn /_~ c $40, 000 i _~ n_ rn $30,000 - Q $zo,ooo - a n $10,000 - - - _ _ -_ - $0 -- i -r ---t- 1 r---#----+' 1997 1998 1,999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2QOS' 2007 -~-Petaluma --N~-Novato -~-- Rohnert Park Notes: Sales here are taxable.sales only;and'exclude most grocery sales as,well as prescription drugs and certain other items, Sales; presented. in 2007 dollars. For details, see AppendixiC: Data for Rohnert Park notavailable for 2004-2007`due to disclosure rules. Sources: State Board of E ualization; State De artment of Finance; Ba Area Economics, 2008. . Other Retail Figure 9 shows trends in sales for Other' Retail storesb in Petaluma, Rohneft Park, and Novato. In 1997, Petaluma and Rohnert Park lagged Novato in this catch=all category; by 2002, Petaluma. led. in this category, only to, fall slightly behind Novato again in.20,07. Since this category istso broad; and includes outlets not,suitable for East Washington Place (e.g., fuel and ice dealers), further analysis was completed on the subcategories for Other Retail, as shown above in Table 7. Overall, Petaluma's per capita taxable sales for the selected subcategories8 in Other Retail lag_the County considerably, at;$689 as compared with $919 countywide. This varies widely by category, however. For instance, in the category of stationery 6 This total includes stores in a varietyof subcategories, as follows: historicallythis has included Gifts, Art,. Novelties; Sporting Goods; Florists; Photo. Equipment; Musical Equipment; Stationery and Books;. Jewelry; Off ce, Store, and School Supplies; Other Specialties; Packaged Li:yuor Stores; Second Hand Merchandise; Farm & Garden; Fuel & Ice; Mobile Home, Campers, and Trailers; Boat, Motorcycle and Plane; and All Other. Stores. Some additional small categories (e.g., farm implements) were added at the"beginning of 2007, and the .categories related. to vehicles were removed. ~ Because'of the combination}of'apparel with other retail beginning in 2004, sales for this category for Rohnert?Park are no`longer comparable and are not presented here. 8 Because of disclosure rules and changes in the classification scheme. beginning in 2007; detail was only available for'the sulicategtiries shown irr the table. Data forthis table from 4`h Quarter 2006 through 3`d Quarter 2007 rather tFian,calendar year 2007. 18 ~' ~Cp . and. books Petaluma actual ly shows stronger sales than the .County ($127 vs. $1-09). Sporting Goods shows levels only slightly below the county, at$14.1' vs. $163. For Office Supplies and Computer Stores; however; Petalurria trails far`behind the County ($191 vs. $362). Figure 9 Taxable. Sales Trends for'Other Retail Stores in Petaluma,. Rohnert Parks and Novato $120;000 _ _~ , . _ _ _ --- _ ~ _ -- - _-~ .$100,000 -- - ~~----~; --~. , ~, $80,000 ~ ~- N `~,~ ~ o $60,000 _ - - - - N m $40,000 - __ _ - _ _ $20,000 _ d $~ K 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 m F -+~-Petaluma --~-.Novato --~-°Rohnert Park Notes: Sales here are taxable sales only, and,exclude most grocery sales as wellpas prescription drugs and cedairrother items. Sales'presehted''in;2007 dollars: Foy details, see Appendix C. Data-for Rohnert Park from 2004-2007 not included because apparehsales have been combined with OtherRetail group. Sources: State Board of Equalization; Stafe`Department of Finance; Bay Area Economics, 2008. Retail Sales Elsewhere in the Trade Area The Trade Area includes retail outlets~that are located outsde.Petaluma, and these outlets need to be considered in evaluating overall retail sales and demand.. The only other incorporated place in the Trade Area is the City of Sonoma;,and the taxable sales data from Sonoma~city have been added to Petaluma's to get taxable-retail sales for the incorporated portions of the Trade Area, as shown in Table 8. Unfortunately; the published'taxable sales and Economic Census data do not separate out .unincorporated subareas of a County. '`To estimate these sales, BAE has relied,on a number of sources, using county data as a$aseline for sales per employee by store type, retail `employment data available for the unincorporated°Trade Area, and estimating sales by major store category. This-analysis can be found in Appendix E. The results. of this analysis,. including total estimated taxable. sales by category for the Trade Area; are ahown iri Table,.8. While the per capita analysis comparing.Petaluma to the County and other nearby~cites is instrtictive;~the numbers shown here, when compared to Sonoma County overall and the state; give a better sense of retail sales in-the Trade area vis=a-vise Sonoma County. The per'capita sales comparison with the County here provides the starting point for the leakage analysis which assesses the retail potential for East Washington Place and its Trade Area. 19 - „' . ~~.• Table 8: Trade Area liaxable Sales Sales in 2007 $000 (a) (b) (c). (d) Apparel Stores GeneraP Merchandise Stores Food Stores Eating and Drinking Places. Home, Furnishings.and Appliances Building Materials (e) Motor Vetiiclesand Pans Service Stations Other Retail`Stores Retail Stores Total ,Petaluma Sonoma Ci Trade Area Incor- porated Trade Area Remainder Trade-Area Sonoma Coun , California .$65',163 $8,612 $73,775' $4;791 $78,566 $258,991 $20;855,890 $51;054 $18,049 $69,103 $251. $69,354 $845,947 $59;897,350, $58;100 $29,835 $87,935 $1'1;079 $99,014 $398,084 $22,461,059 $84;687 $41,311 $125,998, $18;233. $144,231 $592,801 $51,658,575. $13;324 $6,174 $19,498 $2,569 $22,067 $222,132 $16,720,852 $46;226 $17,875 $64,101 $21;963 $86;064 $611,581 $32,656,324 $26.8;358 $22,954 $291;312 $12;058' $303,370 $1,033;898 $70,779;978 $87;978 $20;844 $108,822 $6',402 $115,224 $582,426. $47,D84,940 $83,053 $21,417 $104,470 $14,643. $119,113 $858,737 $64,910,134 $757;943 $187,071 $945;014 $91,989 ;$1;037,003 $5;404;597 :$387,025,102 East Washington Place Categories $355;381' $125,398 $480,779 $51,566 $532,345 $3,176,692 $236,503,860 Sales per Capita in 2007 $ (c) (f) Apparel Stores General Merchandise Stores Food Stores Eating and Drinking Places Home Furnishings and Appliances Building Materials (e) Motor Vehicles and Parts Service Stations Other Retail Stores Retail Stores Total (b) East Washington Place Categories Population Betaluma Sonoma City Trade Area Incor-. ,porated Trade. Area Remainder Trade Area Sonoma County California $1,148 $870 $1,107 $145 $788 $540 $555 $900 $1,823 $1,037 $8 $696' $1,764 $1,595 $1,024 $3,014 $1,320 $336 $994 $830 $598 $1,;492 $4,174 $1,891 $552 $1,447 $1,236 $1,375 $235 $624 $293 $78 $221 $463 $445 $815 $1,806 $962 $665 $864 $1,275 $869 $4;729 $2,319 $4,371 $365 $3,044 $2,155 $1,884 $1;550 $2,106 $1,633 $194 $1,1b6 $1,214 $1,254 $].;464 $2,164 $1,568 $443 $1,195 $1,790 $1,728 $1.3;357 $18,900 $14,1.81.'. $3,786 . $10;406 $11,267 $10,304 $5239 $9,655 $5;895 $1,226 $4,348 $5;793 $5,699 56;743 9,898 66,641 33,017 99,658 479,668 37;559,440 (a),Retail sates have been adjusted to 2007 dollars based on the Taxable Sales Deflators calculated by the State Board df Equalization (BOE). (b) Analysis excludes all non-retail outlets (busihess and personal services) reporting taxable sales. (c) A "#" sign indicates data supressed ko.pi:eserve confi_dehtiality due to four or fewer'outlets,orsales of,more than 80% of the category iri;one store. Suppressed sales Have been combined withlOther Retail Stores, so evaluation of changes in the Othec Retail category'should take this into consideration. (d) Incorporated Trade Area consists of, Betaluma~and,Sonoma cities. Unincorporated area salesare estimated as shown. in Appendix,E, (e) ForGity of'Sonoma, building materials-:group sales'have been estimated based on last yearof available da_ta•(2002): Examihation ofthe.shif[ to "other retail,"'historic trends, and employment estimates for the sector from the Economic Cehsus-indicate,thaf the sales levels have likely remaihed relatively constant. This estimate has then been subtracted fromsthe estimate for otherretail sales'for the City.of Sonoma. Beginriing'in 2007, farm irriplemeritsare ho longer included in Phis category, but`in'stead have:been moved to other'retail. Other chahges<ih some smallercategories' have also been made'. None.of thesechanges should:materiallyaffect the analysis. (f) With the'exception of;tlie Tradg,Area, Percapita sales calculated based on State Board of Equalization reported sales and annual Department of Finance population estimates'6enchmarkeii to the decennial Cerisus. Trade Area populatiori in 2007 has beeri-estimated'using the ABRG Census Tract Projections;:assuming a cohstant annual growth rate from 2005-2010. The populatidns of Petaluma and°Sorioma'.(city) have'6een subtracted_ out to obtain a populatioh'~estirriate>>for the.uhinebrporated portion df the Trade Area. The ABAG estimates for~Petaluma and Sonoma are not signifcahtly`,differentifrom #hose from:DOF: Bourses: State_Board of„Equalization, 2000 U.S.!Census; State Department of Finance; ABAG Projections 2007; ,Bay. Area Econdmics, 2008. 20 ~- Leakage Analysis Retai'Lleakage analysis compares actual retail sales in an area with some benchmark that provides a measure of the potential sales generated by that area's residents. If sales levels are below the predicted level, the area may be;able to support increased sales. This increase in sales could take the form of increased sales in existing outlets or in new outlets. A lower-than-predicted sales, volume implies that consumers are traveling outside the area to shop; thus, sales would be; "leaking" out.of the study area. Conversely, if the area shows more sales than would. be expected from .the area's characteristics, there would be sales. "injections" into the study area: Often, an injection of sales indicates that the study area is serving as the regional shopping destination fora broader area. On the other hand, if an.area shows substantial leakage, it may be due to the presence of aregion-serving retail node outside the study area capturing those "leaked" sales. In such a case, the study area itself may not have sufficient population to support region-serving retail, so those sales cannot expect fo be-captured within the study area. There are a number of factors Ghat can be used to predict sales levels; with the two most important factors being the number of'persons in the. area and the disposable .income available to that population. Additional factors influencing retail spending in an area include household. type, age of population, number of workers in-the area (i.e., daytime population);. tourism expenditures, tenure patterns (ownerws. renter), and cultural factors. To develop a benchmark for Petaluma, BAE has assumed that Sonoma County as a whole represents an appropriate conservative benchmark for sales potential. for-the Trade Area. Income levels are similar (albeit slightly higher in the Trade Area)', and Sonoma County has abroad range of retail for its residents uchth`at overall leakage from the county should be.minimal. In fact, he stores in Marin County may attract some shoppers, particularly from..the Trade Area at the south end.of°Sonoma County, but Sonoma County also acts as ashopping destination for the more rural counties to the north. Because county income levels are slghtly'below the-Trade Area, this analysis is .inherently conservative. Also making the analysis conservative is that no adjustment has been,made for projected increases. in household income leading to future additional retail expenditures. Using 2007 taxable sales data as a baseline,9 BAE'has estimated. the additional amount of,leakage of retail sales from the Trade. Area in 2008. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 9. The Trade Area shows significant leakage for General Merchandise Stores, Food Stores, Home Furnisfiings and.Appliances Building Materials, and Other Retail Stores. In the key category of general:rrierchandise stores, where Target could capture a significant share of the leakage, there is an e"stimated' 20081eakage: of $88.8 million; this leakage is very large relative to the estimated sales: of $1 I~5.8 million in;this category in the Trade Area. Food,store leakages are estimated at $56.2 million, suggesting that even subsequent to the completion ofthe.new Raley's store (see discussion below), the Proposed Project might be able to support a specialty food store: An 9 From the State Board of Equalization. Data have been adjusted to take into account non-taxable sales, and adjusfed'to 2008 le"vets assuming constant sales per capita. 21 c~ -gig electroncs'store is assumedao occupy one of the major, paces.;at East Washington Place; .leakage in the home furnishings/appliance store category that, includes these stores is also substantial, at .$24.3 million annually. Buildingmaterials stores showtleakage of $41.4 million annually, buf .no qutle, is in ths•cafegory are assumed:in the project because of fhe potential. for a.large home improvement center. at tfie~proposed Deer~Creek project:. In the last category suitable for the Proposed-Project; other retail stores show leakages of $59.9 million annually. Theseaeakages indicate~that Petaluma and the Trade Area are significantly under-retailed in many major retail ,categories; East Wasington.Place, if positioned,correctly; could capture a sizable portion oftliese potential sales. 11Aajor Competing Retail Nodes in Petaluma The largest tenant designated-in the Proposed Project is Target. Other assumed• tenants include a consumer. electronics store, an apparel store, a food store, and other,retail outlets in a range of sizes. BAE has identified,and inventoried major Trade Area competitors for the Proposed~Project, in the .general inerehandise, category which includes Target,. and located.ofher key retail types in Petaluma. Figure l0 shows the competingretailnodcs and.primary:competitive outlets in the Trade Area. • Because of Sonoma City's small population base. arid more isolated location, most of the retail there is either local-serving or'fourism oriented; there"-are no comparable center"s in that city; all the .competing centers are in'Petaluma it'sel£ Large retail nodes and;centers tfiat include stores potentially most competitive with the Proposed' Project include Petaluma Plaza; Petaluma P1azaNorth, Washington Square, the Redwood' Gateway Center, Petaluma Village Premium Outlets, and.Downfown'Petaluma.. Overall, retail conditions in-Petaluma.appear relatively healthy; there~are few vacancies, with the largest being;the recently closed Mervyns and the soon-to-close Yardbirds.Home Depot; and while in some cases the keyretail nodes are°somewhatdated in appearance and function; none currently exhibit signs of:urban :decay or physical deterioration. Brokers interviewed indicated that the lack of new retail development in Petaluma has constrained the retail market and kept vacancies low. 22 ~~~~. General Merchandise Stores Food Stores _ Eating and Drinking Places. Home Furnishings and Appliances! Building.Materials INo4or Vehicles and Parts Service Statiohs OthenRetaiPStores Apparel Stores General Merchandise Stores Food Stores "Eating and Drinking Places Home. Furnishings and,Appliances Building Materials Motor Vehicles and Parts Service Stations Other Retail Stores 2007-.Per Capita Taxable Retail Sales 2007 $,(a) 'Estimated`7008 Taxable Retail Sales H2007 $000 (b) TotaLAdjusted Retaif Sales• 2008.$000 (cj Trade Sonoma' Trade Sonomai Trade: SC° _..: Area .Coup ' Area: ;Coun Area Coun $Z88 $54.0 $79;387 '~$268;21T $79,387 $268;217 $696 $1,764 $70;079 $876,084 $415,774 $.1,,009;123' $994 $830 $1100;049 :$41k2,266 $222,332 $1,374;219 $1,4'47 $1,236 $145;739 5613,919 $145,739 $613;9,19 $221 $463 $22;298 :$230,045 $22,298 ~ .$230;045 $864 $1,275 $86;964.' $633;368 $86;964 $633;368 $3;044 $2,155 $306;542 $1;070;7.30 $306,542 $1,070 ,730 $.1;156 $1,21.4 $116,429., $603,175 $1"16,429 _ `$603,175 '$1,195. $1.,790. $120;358 .$889,329° $120,358 ' $889,329 2008 Per Capita Retail Sales 200T$ Per Capita Injection/ Totaf 2008 Jnjection% Trade '- "Sonoma.- (leakage) (Leakage) .Area County 2007 $ 2009-$;000 - $788 $540 $248 $25;000 $1;1'50 $2,031 ($882) ($88;.800) $2,20& $2,766 ($559) ($56,200) '$1,447 $1,236 $2T1 $21;300 $221 $463 ($242) ($24;300} $864 $1,275 (5411} ($41;4Q0) $3,044. $2,155 $889'. $89,500 $1,156 $1,214 (558) ,($5,800} $1,1.95 $1,790 (5595) . ($59,900) .~ IVVICJ. The Trade Area includes the Cities of.Petalu,ma an d,Sonoma as well as surrounding.unincorporatedareas, as descibed'in Figured and Appendix A. (a) From Table 8. (b) 2007 per capita`tazable sales times 2008 population:. 2008 population from Table 2; and shown below: Numbers are.generally consistent with DOF estimates used elsewhere: (c) Sales have been adjusted to take'into account noh-taxable items for food and drug stores. Adjustments Have been made as follows: Trade Sonoma Percent of Total Sales that are`Taxable Area County ~•_ Drug Stores 30% 38% Food Stores 45% 30% TaxableSales in 2007.$000 General Merchandise Taxable"Total,Incl Drug $70,079 $876;084. Drug Store.Baseline Taxable $000 $17,500 (2002) $80;546 (2007) Baseline Population 95;934 (2002) 490;697- (2007) Durg Store;l3aseline Per"Capita Taxable Sales $182 $164 - Adjusted•'to,2007,$' $t94 $164 Drug Store Est`2008 Taxable $000 $19;583 $81,541 Adjustment far Non-Taxable Drug Store $45,695 $183,040 TotalAdjusled,GeneralMerchandise $115;774 $1,009;123 Total Adjusted'Food $222,332 $1,374;219 2008 Population 100,700 496;756 Gounty percapita sales: have~been~assumed as baseline against which to com pare the TraderA~ea. Sales assumed o be "leakirig" from.the Trade APea:ifthat area has per capitaisalesbelow county benchmark. Sales injection s and capture:amountsrounded to nearestfiundred'thousandlollars. Sources Bay4Area:Economics`2008; based ori,information from the CA State Board of Equalization;'200011S; Census; 2007 Gensusof Retail Trade;•and Association of Ba Area Governmerits. 23 E-ai Keegan.& Coppin, a real estate brokerage firm with a strong,presencein:Sonoma County, reports a third quarter 2008 wacancy.rate in Petaluma of 3.8 percent,, up from 3.2 percent the previous quarter and 3:3 percent in third quarter 2007.~~ By comparison; the rate reported for Sonoma County overall.forthird quarter 200.8 was 4.7 percent, up from 3.6 percenta year earlier. Rohnert Park has a particularly high vacancy rate, reported at 9.3 percent" in third quarter 2008. The rates for Petaluma are lower than the "rule of thumb" f ve percent vacancy for a stabilized market (in any retail market, some~space s~gging to be vacant due to turnover and.the lifecycle of retailers as they expand and contract). It should be noted that the additional vacancy of Mervyns, as well as Shoe Pavilion and Yardbirds Home Depot, which is slated for closuresoon, will add substantially to the 93,121 square feet Keegan &Coppin lists as vacant. Petaluma Plaza. "Petaluma Plaza is"directly across Highway 101 from the Proposed Project, at the northwest corner of McDowell Boulevard and East Washngton.,Street. This. center includes Petco, Ross, Trader Joe's, Big 5 Sporting Goods and a number and variety of smaller stores. This center is undergoing a majorupgrade, with a former JC Penney being. replaced by a Raley's supermarket, which is currently under construction. The,irriminent opening of this additional supermarket will likely preclude any major grocery~retailer from"locating- in East Washington Place, effectively reducing°the future leakage ofsales in the,supermarket category. Petaluma Plaza. North. This ceriter°,s directly to the north of Petaluma.Plaza on McDowell and includes a Kmart, Longs Drugs,~~ and a mix of other smaller retailers. Kmart, the store most direc'tly'competitive with Target in,Petaluma, totals 92',516 square-feet irr the Big K format. While Petaluma Plaza-next door has undergone a major facelift,;this•center's appearance is somewhat dated, but the center appears to be well-maintained: This.Kmart appeared busier and better-maintained than :many other northern California Kmarts'vsited by BAE in the course of research for other retail impact studies in the last few years,. Washington Square. This 2T9,000 square-foot center is located diagonally across from Petaluma Plaza, on the southeast corrier of McDowell and East Washington. The major anchor retailers were Mervyns and Safeway, but in October 2008, th'e Mervyns chain, already in bankruptcy, announced that`th"ey would be closing all their,remainirig outlets by the end of 2008, including their 66,91.6 square-foot-space in this center. This is now the 1'argest vacant retail space in the Trade Area. Redwood Gateway Center. This center is located on the site ofthe former Pacific Cinemas on the southwest corner of North McDowell Boulevard and Old.Redwood Highway, at the north.end of Petaluma. At buldout, the centerwill have a total of 166,713 .square feet of space. Major tenants in tfii's center irielude Kohl's, Michaels Arts and. Crafts, "and. Pier 1. This 95,900: quare- foot Kohl's s.classified as: anapparel store by the State Board of Equalization, but°also carries ~~ Discussion. based-on various reports available at http://www:kee~ancoppin.com: "Other brokers directly interviewed "reported higher rates; but did not provide the same level bfquantifative support. BAE's field survey indicated very'',limited:retail vacancies in Petaluma, with the exception. of"the Theater Square project, where::iriitial absorption is:underway at a somewhat slow rate. ~~ The.LongsDrugs company=recently announced its acquisition by CVS, a major national pharmacy chain. 24 . ~.3 housewares and other household-items; in a product mix very similar to Mervyns, The Pier 1 store is more specialty=oriented, and as such is not directly competitive with Target. One large space. in this center currently vacant. was occupied by Shoe Pavilion, which recently closed all of its outlets. Downtown Petaluma. Downtown Petaluma does not have a store: directly competitive with Target, but includes smaller stores that may be affected by the<Proposed Project. As of 2004, Downtown and surrounding-areas had an estimated 362,OOQ square,feet of retail space,.? largely configured as small storefronts. on:PefaIuma Boulevard and nearby streets. Recently, the Theatre District Project has added approximately 86,000 square feet of additional. retail space to the Downtown area. Also, the largest. single=user space Downtown, the 1:8;000 square-foot former Carrithers department°store, which had been occupied by a furniture; store for several years, is currently vacant. The broker representing this space reports that'it is available both for lease and for sale. Petaluma Village-Premium: Outlets.. This factory outlet center consists of specialized off-price outlets that operate in a specialized niche not directly competitive with the Proposed Project. This center may account in part for the high apparel sales.in Petaluma, attracting visitors from beyond the East Washington. Place Trade Area with stores such as the Saks Fifth Avenue Outlet. At the time of BAE's most recent visif, the Food Court was closed and undergoing remodeling. Other Retail Nodes. Other retail centers of note in Petaluma include the Orchard Supply Hardware center on North McDowell near the new Redwood Gateway Center, Petaluma Gateway, the Golden:Eagle Center on the edge of Downtown, and the Yardbirds Home Depot store on Lakeville Highway, -which is slated to close in the near future: For the most part, the outlets in these centers are not•directly competitive with the region-serving retail planned for the proposed project. Petaluma Gateway and the Golden Eagle Center are anchored by supermarkets, and aslocal-serving centers will not be directly competitive with East Washington Place. ,~ Petaluma Leakage & Sustainable Retail Strategy Study, June 2004, Thomas Consultants, Inc. 25 E~33 Figure 10: Competing Retiail 'Nodes got Redwood Gateway CenteP Petaluma VrHage Marf:etplace =--= Petaluma Plaza -~'i~ Washington Square Petaluma Plana North '~-~ h.r 4 ~ ' Downtown Petaluma C-'-~ ~tr~l~ 0 0.5 9 ~ 2 Miles P[oject§ite ~~ ~'~, Competing Retail`tJodes City of Petaluma Trade Area 26 ~~ ~~ l': Inventory by Key Store Type General Merchandise Outlets. Untilrecently, there were two major general merchandise competitors in the Trade Area centers discussed above: Kmart and IVlervyris. The Mervyns closed at the end of 20Q8 as the chain went out of business. As noted elsewhere; Kohl's is considered'to be an apparel store by the State Board of Equalization so its sales are not included with the' general merchandise category,'even though it is functionally similar to Mervyns and other traditional department"stores. Other general merchandise stores of note are Saks Fifth Avenue: Outlet in the: Petaluma Village Premium 0utlefs center, and, Pier 1 in the Redwood Center (with Kohl's). Additionally, the Trade Area includes several drug stores; .including Longs in Petaluma;Plaza North, on East Washington Street to the west of the proposed project, and in Sonoma City, and aRite-Aid in Sonoma City. Surrounding cities have an ample inventory of competitive,general merchandise stores. Target and Costco have stores. bracketing Petaluma in Rohnert Park, Santa: Rosa, Novato, and the City of Napa. Wal-Mart has a store in Rohnert Park. San Rafael and Santa :Rosa have malls with full- line department stores including. Macy's, Sears, and JC Penney. The: presence of these stores will' limit the East Washington Place Target's ability to attract a significant number of shoppers -from beyond the Trade Area. BAE estimates that; based on available data,13 sales per square foot at the major general merchandise competitors (Kmart and Mervyns at the time .of this analysis) were in the range of $200 to $220 per square foot. This is less than-the typical performance fbr Target or Wal-Mart, but is generally in line with .the performance of.other Kmartand Mervyns stores. According to the ULI/ICSC's Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers/The SCORE: 20Q8, this .overall performance is also below'par for discount general merchandise stores nationally.14 The impending closure of Mervyns may increase sales somewhat at the .existing outlets, although Kohl's (in the apparel. category); is more likely to capture Mervyns sales than Kmart, and this may increase sales leakages for Petaluma in the general merchandise store. category. Apparel Stores. The largest apparel outlet.in Petaluma is the Kohl's,. which accounts for a substantial portion ofrapparel store sales in the City. An examination ofhistoric trends (as shown in Appendix C) shows that; prior to Kohl's opening, ,apparel stores sales peaked at approximately $30 million in 2000; subsequent to~the opening. of Kohl's,~sales climbed to $65 million in 2007. Some of this.:has :been at the. expense of general merchandise stores, where annual sales have declined ,by $16;5; million since 2001. JC Penney also closed their Petaluma store in this same ,3 Taking..2007°taxable~sales,data arid'factoring out drug stores and the Saks outlet, most.Qf the remaining sales are likely at the two major- stores, Mervyns, and Kmart: Square footages supplied by City of Petaluma. 14' Urban Land Institute and International Council of Shopping Center's Dollars & .Cents. of Shopping Centers/The SCORE:.2.007„ median annual sales per square foot for discount department stores in super community%communityshoppng centers nationwide were $243.25. 27 time frame.. Assumingthat.the increase is largely due. to Kohl''s, sales~performance in that store is in the range .of $300`per. square. foot. Food Stores. BAE didnot attempt.to nventory.all food stores: in.Petaluma, but.noted the presence-ofseyeral major supermarkets, including two Lucky stores; a. Safeway, Whole Foods, Trader Joe's; Petaluma Market, and G&G Supermarket, as well,,as the under-construction Raley's. There. are also supermarkets in the City of Sonoma.. The Proposed Project is not assumed to have a major supermarket, in part because most leakage-should be absorbed by the Raley's, which will offer an additional supermarket choice in-Petaluma. Major Electronics/Appliance Stores. Petaluma and the Trade'Area currently have no major competitors in the, electronics store category assumed. to be occupying the Proposed Project.. The closest comparable stores are Circuit City and Best Buy in Santa-Rosa, °and a Best Buy in San Rafael. 15 As a.result; this planned store. in Petaluma may draw~from'beyond the'Trade Area to the south,, especially from the Novato area. Restaurants.:$AE' did not attempt o, individually inventory restaurants. in Petaluma.. As indicated;by. the leakage analysis the Trade Areais a,net attractor'of sales~in this category. In Petaluma; after-inflation per capita sales have risen gradually since 1997,. mirroring trends countywide. Sonoma City has extremely high per capita restaurant sales, reflecting its niche as a regional tourist destination. Summary of Retail Sales Analysis Over the last decade, Petaluma's taxable.,retail sales have grown at a higher rate than population. On an inflation-adjusted basis, ?sales^peaked:at $794 million in 2005, and as of 2007 had declined to $758 million. However,, while overall Petaluma is showing long=term increases in retail sales, nearly half of its growth,;fias been in the motor vehicle sector; where Petaluma shows proportionally strong sale"s even as sales. in this sector have.declinedaince 2005. Limiting the analysis to the major categories;;suitab.le:for tenancy at East Washington Place by excluding the motor vehicle-related and bulding.materials sectors presents'a:different:comparatiye picture, For the suitable sectors, Petaluma,shows 2007 sales of only $355:million, compared to $405 million in Novato and $431 million in Rohnert;Park. P.er capita retail .sales are an indicator of the relative strength of a city as° a'retail destination; other factors,being equal, higher per capita sales relative to the region and other cities, point°toward. ,attraction of shoppers from outside the city. Petaluma's per capita;sales in the key retail categories-likely to lieaenants in East Washington Place are anotherindicator ofthe city' weakness.as a retaihdestination, with~key category per capita sales'in recent years at or near Countywide levels, while surrounding cities outperform the County. and .Petaluma. This is ~~ especialhy the case for.Rohnert Park, which saw a sharp increase in°per capita sales in-the earlier ~5 C•losure of the; San:lZafael:Circuit City store was announced on November 3, 2008; bankruptcy for the entire chain;followedshortly°thereafter. The closure of all remaining Circuit City stores by the; end of ' Marcfi was announced on January .16, 2009. 28 ~ ~' part ofthis decade that'indicated;ncreasing capture from outside the city; enlarging its share of regional sales. Petaluma's relative weakness as a retail. destination in compar`isonwith ts.neighboring cities is substantial in the •general merchandise store category, with.the City lagging behind Rohnert Park and Novato in overall and-per capita sales. Both Petaluma andNovafo have lower sales than Rohnert Park in the home furnishings and appliances store category. For apparel stores, food stores, and other retail outlets Petaluma actually has stronger per capita taxable sales than either Rohnert Park or Novato. Apparel store sales are enhanced by the outlet mall and Kohl's. Key components of the,demand for new.retail space in the Trade~Area are capture. of sales to Trade Area residents that.are currently occurring elsewhere. (leakage), .and. population and income growth. BAE has conservatively assumed no increase in sales';from .income growth, so the ~ . estimates here for retail sales potential will be based on leakage and population growth only. Using 2007 taxable sales data,as a.baseline and adjusting for nontaxable items, the Trade Area shows significant 7eakage::for G'eneral'Merchandise Stores, Food -Stores; Home. Furnishings and Appliances, Building Materials, arid~ Other Retail. Large retail nodes and centers that include stores potentially competitive with the Proposed Project include Petaluma Plaza, Petaluma Plaza North, Washington Square,. the Redwood Gateway Center, Petaluma Village:Eremium Outlets, and Downtown Petaluma. The center with the outlet most likely to;feei the impacts of the Proposed Projects Pe"talutna Plaza North with its Kmart. Overall, "on the ground" retail,conditions in Petaluma appear.relativelyhealthy; there are few vacancies, with the largest being the recently vacated Mervyns, and although in some cases the key re"tail nodes are. somewhat dated in appearance and function; none currently exhibit substantial signs of urban decay sand°physical deterioration. The limited new retail development in Petaluma in recent years has constrained the retail market and kept vacancies low. Looking at the inventory by key retail store types, the most directly competitive store for Target would be the Kmart, especially following.the closure of Mervyns at the end of 2008. The,Kmart shows estimated sales performance above Kmart averages but~below'~general retail benchmarks for discount general merchandise stores. The largest apparel outlet is Kohl's, which appears to account for a substantial portion of apparel store sales iri the City.. Petaluma hasrseveral;major supermarkets, covering-a range of°types from local independent to upscale organic/natural;,foods; Raley's willpreserit an.additional option for supermarket shoppers n,the future; and~could capture. much ofthe 1'eakage in this category.. Petaluma and the Trade Area' currently have no major competitors nthe home;electronics category, with the closest comparable storesaocated in Santa Rosaand San,Rafael. As a result; a home. electronics: store in Petalumamay-draw from beyond the: Trade Area to the south,. especially from the Novato area. 29 '~ y V ~~~ _;V Retail !impacts i4inalyss This chapter;providescstimates of the impacts. on sales:,at existing. retail outlets with the Proposed Project in place. This section begins b'y estimating sales in East`Washington Place, and then makes assumptions regarding~the~capture from leakage; capture from residents. living outside the Trade Area; and capture from existing retailers in the Trade.Area. 'Tle inventory of competing retail nodes is discussed and the impacts are then analyzed. Estimated Sales of Project Opening BAE has estimated baseline sales levels of Easf Washington Place upon completion.. in 20 ] '1; assuming stabilized performance and a full year of operations. As shown in Table 10, the Proposed Project:is'projected to achieve total annual sales of approximately $119 million. .Sales in the general merchandise component of the project .constitute the largest share,. and are estimated at $44`.O,million, . followed by the catch-all:Other Retail stores. category at $40:6 million. The home furnishings/appliance Store .. group is estimated to generate $21.2 million in sales, and the remainder of sales are scattered among the apparel and food stores and eating. and drinking places. Table 10: Estimated Annual Sales in Project. Estimated Potential Sales Square Sales in Proposed Store Component Feet (a) per SF (b) Project Apparel Stores 20,000 $360 $7;200,000 General Merchandise Stores 138,851 $317 $44,016,000 Food Stores 10,800 $235 $2,537,000 Eating and Drinking Places 8,300 $440 $3,652,000 Home Furnishings and Appliances 39,000 $543 $21,177,000 Building Materials - $360 $0 Motor Vehicles and Parts - $0 Service Stations - $0 Other Retail 145,000 $280 $40,600,000 Total 361,951 $329 $119,182,000 All sales estimates in 2007 dollars: Estimated ales rounded to nearest thousand. (a) 'DeriVed'from Tabled per latest site plan available: (ti); 5alesper square foot in relevarif categories tia§ been derived as follows: Apparel Stores Apparelaales pefsquare foot based onaveraging the lowest and Highest-estimates from HtlL for each subcategory. General Merchandise Stores Averagesales persquare footfior Target, from most recent Target Corp. Annual Report Food Stores ULl national median sales per squarefootfor speaalty grocery stores'in super regional centers. Eating;and Drinking Places Restaurant sales per square foot based on averagingthe ' lowestand highest estimates from HdL for each subcategory. Home Furnishings and Appliances Averagesales per square foot for Circuit City Superstores, from mostireceritCircuiYCity'AnnualReport Building Materials' Building Materialssale§ persquare:foot basedbn averaging the lowest and highest estimates ftom.HdL fdreacfi subcategory. Other Retail Stores Other Retail sales;per square foot based on averagingthe ' lowest and higtestestimatesfrom HdL for each subcategory: Sources: Bay Area Economics2008, based on information from the CA,State Board of,Equalization, 2000 U.S. Census, 2002 Census of Retail Trade,~Association of Bay.Area Governments, Urban:Land InstitutellCSC, Target, and CircuitCity Annual Reports, Regency Centers, and;Hinderliter de Lamas 200E HdL. 30 E'3B Capture of Leakage by Proposed Project In Table 11, BAE estimates the Proposed Project's potential capture of leakage by major store category for the assumed first full year of project operation; .201,1,, and,for five years later, in 2016. The analysis°ndicates substantial leakage of Trade Area resident retail expenditures in several major store categories; including general merchandise; .food; home furnishings/appliances; building materials, and other retail. The.analysis takes into .account that not all of these categories are suitable for East Washirigfon Place. However, it would speculative to conclude that any given project could capture all of the leakage in any particular major store ..category, since that project would not cover all the, specf c store .types within each major category, and even for a particular market niche, some. shoppers would have preferences for certain stores or items not available in the project. Table 11 shows the capture rates assumed in this analysis.- . With Target, East Washington Place should capture a substantial percentage of the leakage occurring in the general merchandise atore category: The analysis: here assumes aone-third capture of the estimated'$91.1 million. annual sales leakage in 2011.. While there is additional leakage, some of this is likely demand for conventional mall. stores and other types of general merchandise stores (e.g., Costco) that would not be recaptured by the Proposed Project. East Washington Place is.not assumed to have. a major supermarket as a tenant, thus capture of the $57.7 million annual leakage in the Food Store category would be limited, with potential support for a smaller pecialty food store in 2011. A home electronics store is. assumed fo occupy one of the major spaces at East Washington Place. Given the lack of competition,in theappliances/electronics sector in Petaluma, capture is assumed at 60 percent of the total $25.0 million in leakage in this category. No capture of leakage has: been. assumed in the building, materials category. ; no such tenant has been proposed for the center, and much of this leakage may be captured by the home improvement center in the°proposed.Deer Creek Plaza project. Other types of stores in this . category, such as a hardware or plumbing supply store; would not fit with the overall retail mix of the proj ect. In the Other Retail stores category, potential capture has been estimated at one-third of the estimated $61.5 mlliori in leakage in 2011. By 2Q16, an increasing dollar amount of leakage would occur with no change in the retail mix from baseline.2008 conditions; as a result, there are small increments in the dollar amounts of the capture in tfie categories discussed here. E-39 ashington_P 2011 Trade Area Leakage Analysis A pparef Stores General Merchandise Stores Food Stores Eating and Drinking Places Home Fumishingsand Appliances Building Materials Motor Vehicles and Parts Service Stations Other Retail Stores 2016 Trade Area Leakage Analysis Store Category Apparel Stores General Merchandise Stoves Food Stores Eating and Drinking; Places . Home Fumishings'and Appliances Binding Materials MotorVehicles and Parts Service Stations Other Retail Stores Per Capita Injection/ (Leakage) 2007 $ Total Injection/ (Leakage); 2007 $ "000 Capture, Proposed Project ~ A_ dd"Rional Sales 2007 $000 '$248' $25,700 0% $0 {$882) ($91,100} 33% $30,367 {$559} {$57,700) 4% $2,308 '$211 $21,;800 0% $0 ($242} ($25,000) 60% $15,000 ($411) ($42,500.} 0°/u $0 :$889 $91,800 ($58) ($6;000} {$59:5) ($61..500} 33%. $20,500 PerCapifa Injection/ (Leakage)' 200T$ Total Injection/ {Leakage) .2007-$ 000 Capture; Proposed Project Additional Sales 200T$ 000 $248 $26;300 - 0% $0 ,($882) ($93,200} '33% $31',067 ($559) ($59,100} 4% $2,364 $211 $22,400 0% $0 ($242) ($25,600} 60% $15,360 ($41..1) ($43,500} ~ 0%' $0 x$889 $94,000 ($58} ($6,100) ($595} ($62,900} 33% $20,967 Per capita leakage/injection,from Table 9. See7able 9 for tletails on methodology. Sales'leakages.and injections rounded b nearest hundred thousand dollars. Population from Table 2 2011: 103,305 2016: 105,733 Assumptions have been made regarding possible caoNre bythe proposed orojectof leakage:jn each category;#or instance; the Trade Area:is tihlikety'tdachieve-100 percentcapfure of general merchandi§esales; because some general merchan~se shopping,is mall_basetl;:and aril shoppers seeking mall stores are Iikely4o goto Santa Rosa or elsewhere. The;project is assumed nd'ao,capblre any sales in categories such as servicesfations and automotive. retail. Leakage'ih the building materials category is assumed to be captured by the Deer-Creek prgect wtiicli as proposed ihcludes a;LOwe's home improvement center. Sources: Bay Area Economics"2008,based on informatioh from the CA.State Board'of Equalization;2000U.S. Gerisus, 2002 Census of Retail Trade; Associatwnof.Bay Area Govemments,llrtian Landlnstitbte/ICSC, Target and Circuit City Annual Reports,; and Hinderliter de Lamas 2007 (HdL). 32 ~. L Captureof`Sales from Outside the Trade Area Although the Trade Area should account for the large majority of shoppers for East Washington Place, Trade Area. boundaries are. not°absolute, and some shoppers'. from outside the Trade Area will shop at the Proposed Project. For example, if the center succeeds in attracting a home electronics store as•a.tenant,'the lack,of a similar outlet in Novato might serve to attract shoppers from northern Marin County; Commuters and others'. passing through on Highway 101 might also stop at the center. However, the presence of sirriilar region-serving retail nodes in Rohnert Park, Santa Rosa, and Novato; should limit this attraction for most store types. To the east, shoppers from beyond the City of `Sonoma and other nearby areas could go to the Target stores in Napa. Out of a total of $119.2~rni~llion inaales in the~~Propgsed Project, $7.0 jnillion is assumed to be captured from outside th_ e Trade;Area (see Table 12). Capture is assumed at five percent for the retail outlet types assumed for the project, with the exception:of the home furnishings/appliances category, where the iack;of competition in Novato may lead to the attraction of more shoppers from northern Marin County, and food stores,. where the assumed capture has been set lower due to the more local-serving nature of most food stores. Table 12: Capture from Leakage; Outside Trade Area; and'Exisfing ;Outlets 2011 Estimated % Capture $ Capture $ Capture Sales $.Capture from' from from 2011 in Proposed from :Outside, Outside Existing Tvae of Store Project (a) Leakage (b) Area Trade Area (c) Outlets (d) Apparel Stores $7,200,000 $0 5% $360;000 $6;840,000 General Merchandise_ Stores $44,016,000 $30,367;000 5% $2,200,800 $11,448,200 Food Stores •$2,537,000 $2,308;000 3% $76,110 $152,890 Eating and Drinking Places $3,652,000 $0 5°I° $182;600 $3,469,400 Home Furnishings and Appliances $21,177,000 $15,000,000 10% $2 112;700 $4,059;300 Building Materials $0 $0 ~ 0% $0 $0 Motor Vehicles and Parts $0 $0 0% $0 $0 Service Stations $0 $0 0% $0 $0 Other Retail .$40;600,000 $20;500,000 5% '$2,030,000 $18,070,000 Total $119,182,000 $68,175,000 $6,967,210 $44;039,790 2016 Estimated % Capture $ Capture $ Capture 'Sales $ Capture from:. ,from from 2011 in Proposed from: Qutside• Outside Existing Tvae of•Store Project (a) Leakage (b) Area. Trade>Area {c) Outlets (d) Apparel Stores $7,200,000 $0 5% $360,000 $6,840;000 General Merchandise Stores $44,016,000 $31,067,000, 5% $2,200;800 $10,748,200 Food Stores $7;537,000 $2,364,000 3% $26,110 $96;890 Eating and Drinking Places $3,652,000 $0 5% $182,600 $3;469;400 Home.FurhishirigsahdAppliances $21,177,000 $15,360,000 10% $2,117;700 $3,699,300 Building Materials $0 $0 0% $0 $0 Motor Vehieles.and Parts _- $0 $0 0% $0 $0 Service Stations $0 $0 0% $0 $0 Othe"r Retail. $40,600,000 $20,967,000 5% $2,030;000 $17,603',000 Total . $119,182,000 $69,758,000 $6,967;210 $42,456,790 (a)~ From Table`10., (ti) From Table~ll, (c) Percent,caPture'from outside area times estimated'sales.in Proposed P roject: (d) Estimated capture from existing ou tlets in Trade Area equals estimated sales in proje ct,less sales captu red from leakage and salesscapfured from outside the_Trade Area. Sources: Bay Area Economics`2008, based orrinformation from the CA State Board of.Equalization, 2000 U.S. Census, 2002 Census~o'f Retail Trade, Association of Bay Area Governmen ts, Urban Land.Institute/ICSC, Target and Circuit Cit >Anhual Re orts and liinderliterde Lamas 2007 HdL . 33 E-41 Capture of Sales-from Other Outlets in the Trade Area While anew- center may ,capture sales leakages,and bring. in shoppers from outside the Trade Area,. it will also capture ome proporhion of its sales_from eXsting;outlets in the Trade Area. ' Table 12 above; also shows estimates of'the level of capture, by major store category necessary to achieve benchmark levels of sales performance at.the Proposed Project: The total capture from existing~outlets is estimated at.$4'4:0 million, declining to $42.5 niilli'on in 2016 as modest population:growth creates additi'onahretail demand. By category, the largest capture is estimated to be from stores in the other. retail category, at $18..1 million in 2011. That same year; capture from existing general merchandise outlets is estimated at $11.4,mllion; capture from existing apparel-outlets is-estimated'at $6.8:million; capture from eating and drinking places is estimated.at $3.S million; and capture from existing home- furnishings/appliance stores is,estimated at$4.1 million. However, these represent sales that~would be captured in each category that-year, but sales: at existing outlets (in the absence of the Proposed Project) would have.grgwn from current baseline levels due to population,growth changes from baseline sales, representing impacts on current conditions, are shown below in Table 13. Overall, in 2011 there will be an.estimated decline of'$1`,2.6 million; or°one percent of the. baseline 2008 total for overall retail sales. This includes categories.notin the project; and also others where by 2011 the increase in sales overall are assumed to counteract: any .capture by the project. The declines,in 20.11 are: substantial:forrnost of the major: categories assumed to be .present in the project, even though there is~leakage ~n many of these-categories. Sales from existing outlets are estimated to be captured,for apparel, :general merchandise, home furnishings/appliances, .and the other retail. category. The; total estimated capture of sales from existing outlets ranges from $3.5 million for home furnisliirigs/appli°ance stores to $1.5.0 million for'tle other retail'stores-category>. The range by percentage is from six percent for apparel to 16 percent for: home furnishings/appliances. Even though the project is assumed°fo have a restaurant and a specialty food store and will capture., some. sales from existing outlets; ;projected population growth in the. market between.2008 and'2077 indicates that the existing stores:rnaysfll have sales above the assumed;baseline 2008'levels. By 201:6, increases in overall~.retail demand dueto population growth are projected to decrease the=capture from existing outlets. Including retail categories;not assumed for East Waslairigtori Place; overall,retai'lsalc"s:in existing outlets are projected to.inerease two'percentfrom current 'estimated' levels. "For the categories showing,capture of~sales`from 2008 levels in existing stores; the losses range;from $2;6,million for home furnishings/appliances"to $11.6 million for. other. retail` stores. Proportionally; losses range from., four percent for apparel and.. general merchandise stores'up "to "12 pei~cent~for the home furnishings/appliances category..., 34 Table 13:; Net Change in:Sales afExisting Outlets in"Trade Area from .Baseline 2008 2011 Sales in Sales in Baseline Change Existing $ Capture "/° Capture Existing Sales in in Sales, %. Change Outlets, from'2011 from Outlets; Existing 2008- irr.$ales, 2011'(x) Existing Existing, 2011 (d) Outlets, 2011. (f) 2008- Tvoe of Store w/o Project Outlets (b) 2011 (c) w Project 2008 (e) w Project 207,1 Apparel Stores $81,441;Q00 $6;840,000 8% $74;601,000 $79;387,000 ($4,7&6,000) -6% General,Merchandise Stores $1.1,8,269,000 $1'1,448,000 10% $102;321,000 $118;774,000 ($8,453,000) =7%; Food Stores $228,083;000 $153,000 0% $227;930,000 $222;332,000 $5,598,000 3% Eating and Drihking'Places $1'49,509;000 $3,469,000 2% $146,040,000 $145,739,000 $301,000 0% Home,FurriisYiings and Appliances .-$22,825;000 :$4;059,000 18% $18;S16,g00 $22;298,000. ($3,482;000) -16% Building Materials $89,214;000• $0 0% $89;214,000 $86;964,000 $2,250,000 3% Motor Vehicles and Parts .$314,472;000 $0 0% $314,472,000 $306;542,000 $7;930;000 3% .Service Stations ~ '$119,4.4.1;000 $0 0% $119,44],000 $1'16,429,000 $3,012;000 3% Other Retail $123,422,000 $18,,070,000 1'5% $105;402,000 "$120;358,000 ($14,956,000} -12% Total $1,247;276;000 $44,039,000 4% $1,203,237,000 $1,215;823,000 ($12,586;000} -1% 2016 Sales in Sales in Baseline Change `Existing $ Capture % Capture Existing.- Sales. in' in Sales, % Change ' Outlets, from,2016 from Outlets,. Existing 2008- in Sales, - 2016 (a) • Existing Existing, 2016"(d~, , Outlets,: 2016 (f) 2008- Tvae of Store w/o.ProjecY ~ '.Outlets (b) 2016. (c)' . , .: w Project ~ 2008 (e) w Project 2016 Apparel Stores $83;355;000 $6;840,000. 8% $76,515,000 $79;387,000 ($2,872,0001 -4% General,Merchandise Stores $.121,560;000 $10;248,2p0 9% $1'10;81.1,800 $115,774,000 ($4,962;200} -4% Food Stores $233,444;000.- '$96,890 0% $233,347;1.10 $222;332,000 $11,015,110 5% Eating and Drinking Places $153,023;000 $3;469;400 2% "$149,553;600 $145,739,000 $3,814,600 3% Home Furnishings and Appliances $23,412;000 $3;699,300 16% $19;712,700. $22,298,000 ($2,585.300) -12% Building Materials $91,310;000 $0 0% $91,310,000 $86;964',000 $4,346,000 5% Motor Vehicles and Parts $321,863;000 $0 0% $321,;863,000" $306;542,000 .$15,321,000 5% Service Stations '$122;248;000 $0 0% $122;248,000 $116;929,000 $5,819,000 5% Other Retail $126,374;000 $17,603,000 14% $108,771,000 $120,358,000 (511,587,000) -10% Total $1;276,589;000 $42,456,790 3% $1,234,132,210 $1,215,823,000 $18,309,210 2% (a) From Table 9. Represents sales with_ou_ t;Proposed Project ih place, based on current percapita spending levels. (b) From Table 12. (c) Capture in 2009 divided by sales i ri 2009 (sales a§ assumed.without°P roposed Project): (d) Represents estimated sales in existing outlets,irrTrade;Areas"with Proposed Project'open and`"operating at stabilized levels. (e) Estimated sales in existing outlets ih;gjven year. with project'in place. From. Table,9, deriveii from most receht taxable sales data with adjustments for nontaxable items (f} Estimated changein baselihe sales, subtracting baseline sales from 2008 from adjustedsales,of ezi§ting outlets with project in place. Sources: Bay Area Economics 2008 , based on information from the;CA State Board of Equalization,•2000 U.S. Census, 2002 Census of Retail Trade, Association:of Ba Area Governmenfs, Urban Land Institute/ICSC; Target and Circuit Ci Annual Re rts; and:Hinderliter de Lamas 2007` HdL' . 35 V V ~~- Impacts of Proposed Projection Petaluma's Retail Environment Overview. Driven by the above analysis, this section assesses how the Proposed Project might affect the overall retail environment in Petaluma. Per Resolution No: 2008-189_ N.C.S., the FEIA should consider [t]he estimated impacts of the proposed project on existing retail businesses, including the potential for opportunities for business renewal and growth due to new businesses locating in the Petaluma community, as well as the potential for negative impacts such as reduced sales or closures. Thus this FEIA needs to look at both positive and negative°potential impacts of the proposed East Washington Place on the City's retail environment. The above retail sales, leakage, and capture analysis lays the groundwork for this discussion. Opportunities for Renewal and Growth The Proposed Project will bring new retail outlets to the City. The anchor tenant, Target, represents a retailer not currently present in the City. With the closure of.Mervyns, and before that JC Penney, Petaluma residents have relatively limited options when seeking to shop at a general merchandise store, with Kmart being the only remaining large.store of this type (although Kohl's has a retail mix similar to the former Mervyns and thus competed with that general merchandise store). There are other gaps in the City's retail fabric.that might be filled by some of the other outlets in East Washington Place, e.g., a mid-size home electronics outlet. The leakage analysis demonstrates that local-residents are probably venturing to other nearby cities to shop because of the lack of preferred stores within the City. While some sales may be captured from existing outlets (see discussion. below regarding these- potential negative .impacts),. the project should result in a riet inci•ease.in,the number of stores. and in overall retail sales in Petaluma. Table 13 above shows the overall dollar.change from estimated 2008 baseline sales; in 20.11 with the Proposed Project in place, retail sales in the Trade Area are projected to decline $12.6 million from 20081evels, with an overall net increase in 2016. It is important to:note that some of this net change is due to population increases in the Trade Area, and that certain sectors. directly competitive with the Proposed Project show losses for existing outlets, even in 20.16.. Thus there is a potential mix of disruption and closure for some retail types with backfilling of space due to growing demand in all sectors, including,those not assumed for East Washington Place. The potential negative and disruptive impacts are discussed in more detail in the following section. Potential Negative Impacts of the Proposed Project on Existing Retailers Estimated Impacts of Proposed Project on Existing General Merchandise .Outlets. The largest store in the project is Target. Because of overlap in market niche, the store most likely to be impacted by the new Target is the existing Kmart. Because Target positions itself in a more upscale niche than Kmart, it.s also likely to draw some sales from Kohl's also, but any impacts on Kohl's may be effectively~cancelled out by Kohl's capturing some of the sales previously going to Mervyns. If the Kmart is performing in the range of $200 to $220 per square foot as 36 ~~ estimated above, total .annual sales would be in the approximate range of $18 million to $20 million. If the entire loss in general merchandise for 2011 of $5.5 million is assigned to Kmart, sales would decline to approximately $140 to $160 per square foot. While these numbers seem low, they are still above estimated national averages from Kmartderived from their most recent corporate annual report.IG By 201;5, growth in the local market would allow Kmart's sales to recover to near current levels. Since ,these numbers .are above national averages for Kmart, the opening of Target will not necessarily lead to,the closure of the existing Kmart in Petaluma. Estimated Impacts on Existing":Apparel Stores. BAE assumes the presence of a 20,000 square foot apparel store in East Washington Place; mid-size apparel stores such as Ross and other chains are common in centers of this type:l~ Because of Kohl's and the outlet mall, Petaluma is not assumed to be.leaking.sales in this store category, thus any additional•apparel outlets would capture sales in large part from existing stores. In 2011, such a store is :estimated to capture approximately six percent of sales from. baseline 20081evels for existing stores; this estimated loss would decline in 2016 to four percent of the baseline sales. Because of this limited loss, as well as the wide range of apparel outlets in the City and the lack of knowledge of the precise market niche of an apparel store in the Proposed Project, it would be very speculative to assume sales impacts that would result in the closure of other apparel outlets in the Trade Area. In fact, other competitors, especially Kohl's, are likely to benefit from the impending closure of Mervyns. Furthermore, whileno leakage is indicated from the analysis above, sales in the outlet mall, because of its specialized focus, likely come in considerable part from beyond the Trade Area, and may mask gaps in the more'local-serving market for certain types of apparel stores. Estimated Impacts on Existing Food Stores. BAE's analysis assumes that only a small specialty food retailer might locate in East Washington Place (e.g., an ethnic food market or a produce market). Because of the large amount of leakage in this category and population growth, it is estimated that no sal'es:will be captured from existing outlets. Even in combination with the under-construction Raley's, this impact will be negligible. No supermarkets or other food stores can be assumed to be at risk of closure due to the possibility of a small specialty food store in East Washington Place. Estimated Impacts on Exis'ting.Restaurants. The Trade Area shows attraction of sales in the Eating and Drinking Places category (see Table 9 above), much ofit due to strong tourism-related sales in Sonoma City. As a result, there is.rio leakage to be captured, and additional supportable restaurant space due to population growth is extremely limited. Thus, a restaurant at the Proposed,Project would likely capture sales from existing outlets. However, this capture is very limited as a proportion of total eating and drinking places sales and the impacts on any particular restaurant are unknown. One portion ofthe restaurant market that is under-represented in Petaluma~is national chain.full-service restaurants. The Petaluma Leakage & Sustainable Retail 16 Sears Holding Corporation, Form 10-K, for fiscal year ending February 2, 2008. 17 Note. that Ross is used as the example of a store type, there is already aRoss in Petaluma so that particular retailer is not assumed to be a tenant in East Washington Place. 37 C-4v~ Strategy Study cites this as a market niche showing significant leakage of sales, despite the IB overall attraction of sales in the Eating and Drinking Places category. . Estimated Impacts in Home Furnishings and Appliances Sector. The Proposed Project assumes one major retailer in this category. However, Petaluma is very under-retailed in this overall category and specifically for home. appliances/electronics stores, as indicated by the analysis above. A home electronics. store could capture a significant'percentage of the leakage iri this category; and with population growth,'there is strong demand for a store of this type in the Trade Area. The Petaluma Leakage & Sustainable Retail Strategy Study cites electronics/computers as well as home furnishings, appliances, and accessories as additional ,sectors with.significant leakage of sales.19 The analysis shows:a capture of 16 percent of baseline sales from existing stores in this. category, declining to 12 percent by 2016. This level of sales decline could potentially imperil other competitors in the category, but the lack of specificity regarding the. particular retailer and its product mix makes it impossible to point to a particular existing store. being:at risk. In.any case, overall demand increases in the Trade Area indicate the potential for re-tenanting of vacated space due to impacts in this particular sector. Estimated Impacts on Other Retail. Sectors in Petaluma. and the Trade Area. In the Other Retail Stores category, 2008 baseline. sales are estimated. at approximately $126.4 million. Because of the sizable leakage in this broad category, East Washington Place is assumed to capture most of its sales from leakage rather than existing outlets. The ultimate .level of impact will depend in large part on the particular retail types that end. up as tenants. in the project, and since the specific retail mix for these stores is unknown at this time, it would be speculative to assume impacts on particular stores or store types. Estimated Impacts by Retail Node. The following section considers the impact by retail node rather than by specific outlets. Petaluma Plaza and.Petaluma Plaza North. A large change for these centers is already in the works, with Raley's current under construction, replacing the former JC Penney store. It should be noted that these two centers, while sharing a parking lot to some extent, are under different ownership; visually, the North-centeris more dated. As part of its analysis, BAE contacted the broker for Petaluma,Plaza North who believes that Target would be extremely detrimental to Kmart, and if Kmart closed, the approvals process. in Petaluma could make revitalization of the center difficult, especially if a complete replacement of the existing Kmart space were required. zo Other brokers believed, however; that.the under-construction Raley's and other strong tenants in the adjacent Petaluma Plaza will continue to attract shoppers to both centers and if this Kmart were to close, the vacant space could attract a new tenant. Overall and as discussed above, the sales data .indicate that this Kmart might survive even with Target open, and that the loss of Kmart, if it did. occur, could perhaps lead to re-tenanting in the long run with a stronger tenant or tenants.. Petaluma Leakage & Sustainable Retail Strategy Study, June 2004, Thomas Consultants, Tnc. 19 Ibid zo Woolmington-Smith'Ventures LLC 38 ~~- ` `E~ Washington Square. This center is currently well-tenanted; butMervyns closed at the end.of 2008. Safeway, the other major anchor store, is not likely to be affected to a large degree by the ..new center, but will face competition from the Raley's slated for Petaluma Plaza. Nevertheless, the leakages in the food store category should make it possible for Petaluma to support both these and other existing supermarkets. Redwood Gateway Center: The Kohl's in this center could see a loss in sales due to the Proposed Project, but,not at a.level thaf would indicate this fairly successful Kohl's or any of the other currently operating outlets are at risk-of closure. Faced with the competition of East Washington Place, this store also benefits: from its location at the other end of town; since the nearest Kohl's to the north is on the north end of'SantaRosa, this center is likely attracting shoppers from the Rohnert Park/Cotati area. This .center recently lost one tenant, as Shoe. Pavilion closed all its stores including the one in this center. Downtown Petaluma. As with, most successful downtowns today, Downtown Petaluma has evolved into a differentmarket niche as other shopping centers have developed imthe City, offering an option for a different kind of shopping/dining/entertainment experience, along with providing a place for small,local start-up businesses serving this unique market niche. With its historic structures and ambience, the stores here cater to a larger area than the Trade Area, amacting residents of nearby cities and day-trip tourists. Many of the stores are in the apparel or other retail category. Whatever the impact on particular stores, the existing Downtown as a whole will probably bemiriimally impacted, as it provides a different shopping experience than East Washington Place: Petaluma Village Premium Outlets.' Like Downtown, this retail node consists of shops that attract shoppers from a larger region and are generally not directly` competitive with the Proposed Project, and the impacts are likely to be minimal as a result. Other Retail Nodes. Other retail.centers of note in Petaluma include the Orchard Supply Hardware center on North;McDowell nearthe new Redwood Gateway Center, Petaluma Gateway, and the Yardliirds Home Depot center on Lakeville Highway; the closing of this, last center's anchor store was announced in January 2009. For the most part,. the outlets in these centers are not directly competitive with the known retail planned:for the proposed project. None of the undesignated spaces available in.the Proposed Project is suitable for a competitor with Orchard. Supply or Yardbirds Home Depot: Petaluma Gateway is alocal-serving center anchored by a Lucky Supermarket, and will not be directly competitive with East Washington Place. Overall Impacts on Retail Stores and Nodes The analysis indicates that some stores may see a loss of sales, particularly the Kmart. However, while existing general merchandise stores and stores in certain other categories (e.g., home furnishings/,appliances) may show losses of sales, overall retail sales for existing outlets in Petaluma are estimated to show verylimifed losses~in 2011 relative to current levels, when East Washington Place is -assumed to be in operation, and by 2016, the overall sales in existing outlets 39 ~~~~ should- be above currentlevels. This indicates that. even-if individual outlets face closure, overall demand for retail space wi Mead to demand such that vacated spaces should be re-tenanted within a reasonable period of time. Currently there `is one,large vacant anchor retail space vacant in Trade Area (the recently vacated Mervyns), and BAE's tour of the existing centers found no current evidence of substantial urban decay orphysical deterioration resulting from vacancy, defer ed maintenance, or disinvestment. If the Proposed Project is built, the center with the potential to'face a major vacancy is Petaluma Plaza North, where the Kmart is at some risk of closure due to the Proposed Project. While a center representative stated that re-tenanting might be difficult, and the loss of an anchor would adversely impact the. remainder of.the ,center, other brokers indicated that this center is adjacent to Petaluma Plaza and the two centers effectively function as onelarge center, with shared parking, The soon-to-open Raley's would continue act to draw shoppers to both .centers, so there is potentially less risk to the other Tenants of Petaluma Plaza North than ifKmart were the only anchor tenant. Furthermore, Kmart could be replaced by a retailer or retailers who would be stronger draws to. the center. For instance, a store such as Home Depot could re-tenant this space.~~ Thus;. it is unlikely that the possible closure of the Kmart store would necessarily cause this entire retail center to .enter the "downward spiral" into urban decay and. deterioration. Ultimately, if the market proves unable to provide a retail tenant or tenants for this space, the property owners may have'. to redevelop .the center in some. other use; such,as mixed. use or other non-retail commercial uses. This.site has strong locational advantages with highway access on a highly traveled highway corridor. Potential Cumulative Impacts Deer Creek Village, located th'e on southwest side of North McDowell Boulevard to the. east of Rainier Avenue; is another large proposed mixed-use project underdevelopment in Petaluma on a. tentative schedule similar to East Washington Place. As currently planned, the center will total approximately 315,000 square feet, largely in retail but with some office space; a bank, and a fitness club. The anchor tenant, a Lowe's home improvement center, would not be directly competitive with the retaiLmix for East Washington Place. Some of he other uses could overlap, in the categories of apparel; food, home furnishings/appliances, restaurants, and for tenants in the small shops. The pharmacy in Deer Creek Village, while in the. general merchandise category, would be more local-serving and not directly competitive with the Target. Overall, based on their anchor tenants, East- Washington Place and Deer Creek Village are targeted in large part toward somewhat different and complementary cetail'niches; and.,even slightly different geographic areas. This will lessen any cumulative impacts in;Pefaluma. While individual outlets might be impacted, the total capture of existing market,share is limited. such that the overall. retail market should be able to absorb these projects'without the prospect of long- term vacancies in existing retail spaces. :, In recent'years,`Flome Depot:has taken over closed Kmart spaces in Oak-land, Newark, Morgan Hill, and CrescentfCty. . 40 c-~,g Summary of Impacts on Existing Retailers BAE.estimates that at stabilized performance levels, the Proposed Project will achieve total annual sales of approximately $119 million. Sales in the general merchandise component of the project constitute the largest share, and are estimated at•$44,:0 million, followed by the other retail stores category at $40.6 million; and home furnishings/appliance stores at $21.2 million in sales. The remaining sales are distributed.among apparel and food stores and eating and drinking places. The Trade Area is estimated to be leaking sales in several major store categories, includirig• general merchandise, food, home furnishings/appliances, building materials, and other.retail. With the capturerates as assumed for the appropriate retail categories, the Proposed Project could capture~a significant percentage of the leakage occurring in several major retail categories. The largest portion of this is in the general merchandise.store category, with an estimated one-third capture of the estimated $91.1 million annual sales leakage in 2011. While there is additional leakage, some of this is likely demand for conventional rriall;stores°and other types of general merchandise stores (e.g., Costco) that would. not be recaptured by the Proposed Project. Capture of the $57.7 million annual leakage in the Food Store category would be limited, with potential support for a smaller specialty food store in 2011. Given the lack of competition in the appliances/electronics sector in Petaluma, capture is assumed at 60 percent of the total $25.0 million in leakage in this category. In the Other Retail stores. category, potential capture. has been estimated at one-third of the estimated'$61.5 million in leakage"in 2011: By 2016, an increasing dollar amount of leakage would occur with no change in the retail. mix from baseline 2008 conditions; as a result, there are small increments in the leakage in the. categories discussed here. By 2016, an increasing dollar amount of leakage would occur with rio change in the retail mix from baseline 2008. conditions; as a result, there are small increments in'the dollar amounts of the capture in the categories discussed here: Although the Trade Area should account for the large majority of shoppers for East Washington Place, some shoppers from outside the Trade Area will also shop at the Proposed Project. However, the presence ofsimilar region-serving retail nodes in Rohnert Park, Santa Rosa, and Novato limits attraction. Out of;a total of $119.2 million in estimated sales in the Proposed Project, only $7.0 million is assumed to be captured from shoppers residing,outside the Trade Area. While'the Proposed Project. may capture sales leakages and bring in shoppers from outside the Trade Area, it will also capture some proportion of its sales from existing outlets in the Trade Area. Overall, in 201,1 there will be an estimated decline of $12.6: million, or one percent of the baseline 2008 total, for overall retail sales. By category, the declines are more pronounced.for' most of the major categories assumed to be present in-the project; sales captures are assumed from.existing outlets in the apparel, general merchandise,.home furnishings/appliances, and other retail category.. The estimated:capture of sales from existing outlets ranges from $3.5 million for home furnishings/appliance~storesto $15.0 million for the other retail stores category, with the percentage capture ranging from six percent for general merchandise to 16 percent`for home furnishings/appliance outlets. By 2016, increases in overall retail demand due to population 41 ~~ ~~• growth are projected to decrease the potential capture from existing outlets, with some categories which in 2011 showed losses from baseline levels in' 2011 showing gains in sales five years later. Since they overlap. in market niche, the store most likely to be.impacted by the new Target.is the existing Kmart. If the entire loss in general merchandise store sales for 2011 of $5.6 million is assigned to Kmart, it is estimated that sales would decline to approximately $140 to $160 per square foot. While these numbers seem low, they are still above estimated national averages from Kmart. By 2016, growth in the local market would.allowthe store to recover to near current sales levels. Since these numbers are above national averages for. Kmart, the opening of Target will not necessarily lead to the closure. of the existing Kmart in Petaluma. Due to the limited estimated loss of six percent of baseline sales in 20l 1 as well as the wide range of apparel outlets in the City and the lack_of:information regarding the precise market niche of an apparel store in the Proposed Project, if would be speculative to assume any sales impacts that would result. in the closure of other apparel outlets `in the Trade Area. Additionally, the presence of the outlet mall may mask leakages in the subcategory of more local-serving apparel stores. Because of the large amount of leakage in the food store category and population growth, even in combination with the under-construction.Raley's the impacts on existing food stores are estimated to be negligible. No supermarkets or other food stores can be assumed to be at risk of closure due to a possible small specialty food store at East Washington Place. A restaurant at the Proposed Project would likely capture sales from existing outlets, but this capture is very limited as a proportion of total eating and drinking places sales, and the impacts on any particular restaurant. are unknown., Furthermore, as with apparel tores, restaurants in Petaluma may act as destination retail attracting from beyond the East Washington Place Trade Area; but the City may still be under=retailed in certain niches, such as national chain full-service restaurants. Petaluma is substantially: under-retailed in the home furnishings/appliances sector. A mid-size home electronics store could capture asignificant-percentage of the leakage in this category, and with population growth, there is strong demand'for a store of this type in the Trade Area. The analysis shows a capture of 16 percent of baseline sales from existing stores in this category, declining to 12 percent by 2016. This level of sales decline could: potentially imperil other competitors in the category, but overall demand increases in the Trade Area indicate the potential for re-tenanting~of vacated space due to impacts in this particular-sector. Because of the sizable .leakage in the broad other retail stores category, East Washington Place is assumed to capture most of its sales from leakage rather than existing outlets in this category: The ultimate level of'mpact will depend in large part on the particular retail types that become tenants in the project, and. since~the specific retail mix for these stores is unknown at this time, it wouldbe speculative.to assume impacts on particular stores or store. types leading to, closure of existing outlets. The retail node. with the ..greatest potential for substantial impacts is Petaluma Plaza North, because of the Kmart in that center. A large change for~this center is already in he works, with Raley's currently under construction next door at Petaluma Plaza. The Raley's will. act: as a.major anchor, attracting shoppers to both centers even if the Kmart closes, and making the Kmart space more valuable to potential new tenants. While the approvals process could slow re-tenanting, the 42 ~~~.~ center could end up with a stronger tenant than Kmart. In any case, the sales data indicate that this Kmart might~survive even with Target open. Downtown Petaluma has. evolved into a different market niche as other shopping centers have developed in the City, offering an option for a,different kind of shopping/dining/entertainment experience, along with providing a place for small local start-up businesses serving this unique market niche. With its historic structures and ambience, the stores here cater to a larger area than the Trade Area, attracting residents of nearby cities and day-trip tourists. Many of the stores are in the apparel or other retail category. Whatever the impact on particular stores, the existing, Downtown as a whole will probably be minimally impacted, as it provides a different shopping experience than East Washington Place. Other retail nodes in the City,: because of their different market focus by type of good or size of market area, are less likely to see impacts leading to closure of-existing stores. The Proposed Projectwill`bring new retail outlets to the City. The anchor tenant, Target, represents a retailer not currently present in the City; today, Petaluma residents have relatively limited options. when seeking to shop at a general merchandise store. There are other gaps in the City's retail fabric that might be filled by some of the other outlets in East Washington Place, e.g., a-mid-size home electroriics outlet. The leakage analysis demonstrates that local residents are probably venturing to other nearby.cities to shop because of the lack of preferred stores within the City. While some sales may be captured from existing outlets, the project should result in a net increase in the number of stores and in overall retail sales in Petaluma. While there is a potential mix of disruption and closure for some retail stores with' backfilling and re-tenanting of vacated retail space due to growing demand in all sectors, including those not assumed for East Washington Place. 43 ~~~ I Employment Impacts The second major component of an FEIA as requested per the Council Resolution is an analysis of potential employment impacts in the City of Petaluma, including types of employment generated, likely wages and benefits relative to industry standards.and/or the City's Living Wage. This chapter assesses those impacts to the extent possible with available data. Employment Job Creation. East Washington Place will create both temporary and permanent jobs in Petaluma. Assuming the project has a one year construction period, the Proposed Project will also create an estimated 388 temporary jobs in construction-related fields.ZZ A majority of the permanent jobs created will be in retail and related sectors. The project sponsor indicated that Target expects to.employ approximately 250 workers at East Washington Place. One-third of these positions would be full-time jobs (more than 32 hours per week) while the remaining two-thirds would be part-time positions (between 20 and 32 hours per week). Because specific tenants for the remaining.retail spaces have not been confirmed, BAE estimated new employment levels for these spaces based on the projected tenant mix and frequently-used employee density figures which estimate the square footage of floor space per employee. According to a 2001 Employment Density Study prepared for the Southern California Association of Governments, regional retail stores average approximately 900 square feet per employee. Other commercial uses such as restaurants and officeshave higher employment densities. As shown in Table 14, the Proposed Project is estimated to generate 721 new jobs, including 390. full-time positions and 331 part-time positions. An estimated 667 jobs would be in retail and related industry sectors. With.the exception of Target, the ratio of part-time and full-time workers here is estimated based on an analysis of retail workers. throughout California from the 2000 Census Public Use Microdata Sample, which provides a breakdown of this ratio by detailed industry sector not available elsewhere. Because the ratio is derived this way, comparison of the mix in the Proposed. Project to "norms" would effectively be circular. While Target appears to have a large proportion ofpart-time employees relative to retail overall, it is not possible with the available data to determine whether the mix falls outside of industry standards for discount general merchandise stores. It is important to note also that part-time employment is:more suitable for certain workers and is. thus not necessarily involuntary or inherently an indicator of underemployment or ZZ This estimate'was arrived at using IMPLAN, an input-output model. IMPLAN assumes a certain value of construction per employee-year in a given area such as Sonoma County. Since construction has been assumed to-take T2'months, employee years in this case are equivalent to the number of employees. The cost of the construction is derived from the fiscal impact analysis below (see Table 20), 44 E~Sa underutilization of the labor force.. For instance, part-time work can be more appropriate for younger persons still attending school, parents attempting to balance child care needs and careers, or retired persons seeking some supplemental income. National data from the Current Population Survey indicate.that for the combined retail and wholesale sectors, out of a total of approximately 5.1 million workers iri part-time positions, only l3 percent were working part time for economic reasons (e.g., slowing of business in he workplace, could only fmd part-time work); the remainder were working part time due to a desire to work part-time, vacations, illness, or other 23 reasons. Table 14: Estimated Permanent Employment Employee Square Density Employment Feet '(Sq. Ft./Emp) Part-Time (a) Full-Time Total Target (b) 138,851 555 167 83 250 Home Electronics 30,700 900 6 29 34 Apparel 20,000 900 10 13 22 Sporting Goods 42,000 900 22 25 47 Furniture/Home Furnishings 8;300 900 2 7 9 Restaurant 8,300 400 9 12 21 Specialty Food 10;800 400 8 19 27 Other Retail 103;000 400 97 161 258 Total Retail and Food Services . 361,951 320 348 667 Office 16,000 300 11 43 53 Total 377,951 331 390 721 Notes: (a) Estimated percentage of employees who are part-time (less than 35 hours per week) based on an analysis of ratio of full and part-time employment by key industry sectors derived from the 2000 Census Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS). See Appendix G. (b) Employment estimates for Target provided by project sponsor. Approximately 67 percent of Target employees are expected to be part-time (less than 32 hours perweek). Sources: SCAG Employmeht Density Summary Report, 2001; U.S. Census 2000 Public Use Microdata Sam le; Re enc Centers (for Tar of data ; BAE, 2008 Net Employment Impacts. The entrance of new retail, including a Target, into Petaluma would increase overall employment in the City, but nevertheless could result in a loss of sales at existing. retail outlets as they adjust to lower sales levels due to the capture of some sales in the Proposed Project. Using average sales per employee, changes in sales can. be translated into estimated. changes in employment levels. As shown in Table 15 below; if the. Proposed Project opened in 20:11, it would result in.a7oss of 75 retail jobs in existing retail outlet"s' inahe City°ofPetaiuma from baseline 20081eyels.Z~ By 2016, however, expected gains :in population would lead to 23 200:7 Current=Population Survey,, Characteristics of the Employed, Table 21, Bureau of Labor Statistics. z< Some of these losses could conceivably occur outside Petaluma but within the Trade Area, but to be ' .conservative, it is assumed here that all job losses will occur within the City: Additionally, this figure is based on conditions at .the assumed date of project opening.in 2011, after sales levels have increased due to 45 ~' overall estimated retail employment in existing retail outlets in Petaluma being greater than current baseline levels, although existing retailers in some sectors (e.g., apparel, general merchandise) could still see losses. Table 15: Change in Employment at Existing Retail Outlets in the Trade Area 2011 Change in Sales, Change in 2008- Sales Employment, 2011 (a) per Existing Tvoe.of Store w Project Employee.(ti) Retail Outlets Apparel Stores ($4,786,000) $129,000 -37 General Merchahdise Stores ~ ($8;453,000) $266,000 -82 Food Stores $5;598,000 $213,000' 26 Eating and Drinking Places $301,000 $216,000 1 Home Furhishings and Appliances ($3,482,000) $235;000 -15 Building Materials $2,250,000 $401,000 6 Motor Vehicles and.Parts $7;930,000 $370,000 21 ' Service Stations $3,012,000 $164,000 18 Other`Retail, ($14,956,000) $234,000 -64 Total ($12,58fi,000) ~ -75 2016 Change in Sales, Change,in 2008- Sales Employment, 2016 (a) per Existing Tvae of Store w Project Employee (b) Retaif Ou4lets Apparel Stores ($2,872,000) $129,000 -22 General Merchandise Stores ($4,962,200) $266,000 -19 Food Stores ~ $11,015,110 $213,000 52 ' Eating and Drihliing Places $3,814,600 $2]6,000 18 Home Furnishings and Appliances ($2,585,300) $235,000 -11 Building Materials $4,346,000 $401,000 11 Motor Vehicles and Parts $15,321,000 $370,000 41 Service Stations $5',819,000' $164;000 ' 35 Other Retail ($11,587,000) $234,000 -50 Total $18,309,210 56 (a) Estimated change. in.baselihe sales, subtracting basel ine sales from 2008 from adjusted sales of eidsting outlefswith project in place.. From Table 1$. (b) Based oh Appendix E:. County sal es and employee totals have been re-aggregated into BOE categories, ihflated to 2007 dollars, to derive sales per employee. Rounded to nearest thousand. Sources: Bay Area. Ecohomics 2008, based on information from the CA Sta te Board of Equalization, 2000 IJ.S. Census, 2002 Census of'Retail Trade, Association of Bay Area Govern ments, Urban Land Institute/ICSC, Targetiand Circuit City Annual Reports, and Hinderliter de Lamas2007 HdL). While the Proposed Project is anticipated to create an initial reduction of employment at existing .: retail outlets, the losses: would be offset by the 667 retail jobs created by Target and other tenants. This would.restilt in a net job creation of 593 new retail positions. As shown in Table 16, net project population increases. If EasfWashington Place opened in 2008, the loss of jobs from baseline levels would be higher. 46 ~~~ retaiL.employment created by the Proposed Project alone, would exceed Petaluma retail job growth as projected by the Association of Bay Area Governments for the 2010 to 2015 period. Table 16, Net Retail Employment, 201.1 Job Creation, Proposed Project 667 Job Losses, Existing Retail Outlets (a) Net Job Creation 593 Projected Retail Job Growth, 2010-2015 (b) 440 Notes: (a) Estimated job losses at exiting reiail~outlets in 2011. (b) ABAG projected growth for Petaluma.. Sources: ABAG, 2007; BAE, 2009 Wages and Benefits Wages. While a large proportion of employment opportunities at East Washington Place would be in retail sales and related occupations, the Proposed:Project,canalsobe expected to generate jobs in other areas such.as food preparation and serving; building and grounds cleaning and maintenance, and office and administrative support. Estimated' employee wages will vary depending on the particular occupation. Table 17 provides wage' data for relevant occupations in the Santa Rosa-:Petaluma.region. Table 17`. Estimated Wages for Likely Occupations in'Proposed Project Average Hourly Wage Annual. 25th 75th Wage Average Percentile Median Percentile Sales and Related Occupations $39;80;1 .$19.14. $9.52 $14.00 $2.1.94 Food Preparation and Serving-Related Occupations $21,775 $10.47. $8.19 $9:17 $11.42 Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations $27,482 $13.21 $9.53 $11.88 $15.42. Office and Administrative~SupporfOccupations $36,367 $17.48 $12.70 $16:73 $21.40 Construction and Extraction Occupations $52,804 $25:39. $18.99 $24:92 $30.52 Wage data reported for Santa. Rosa-Petaluma MSA:for 1st quarter 2008. Sources: CA Em to menYDevelopmenf;Department,.2008; BAE, 2009. The Target,Employee.Benefits policyZS indicates that the company pays competitive wages that. are se't at or above the market average for jobs with similar skills and responsibilities, but becau"se wage information is proprietary, the project sponsor did not provide BAE with typical wages for individuaLpositions at Target. Nevertheless, employee earnings at Target and other tenants at East Washington Place would likely be comparable to the prevailing market wages in the area,for similar types of employment. 25 • Target Employee Benefits; provided by Regency Centers on January 7, 2009. 47 ~~S The City of Petaluma adopted a Living Wage Policy in January 2007, which is intended to ensure that City employees and employees of City contractors earn an hourly wage that is sufficient to live with dignity and to achieve self-sufficiency. Although the Living Wage Policy does not apply to private sector employees who do not do business with the City, it serves as a standard against which to compare average wages for relevant occupations.: The current living wage, which was updated on January 1, 2008, is $13.64 per hour without an employee medical benefit plan and $12:14 per hour with an employee medical plan. The average wage data presented in Table 17~above does not provide information on the level of medical and other benefits offered to employees in conjunction with their wage.. Nevertheless, the average wages for sales and re.lated:occupations, office and administrative support occupations, and construction and extraction occupations exceed the $13.64 living wage hourly standard for employees without medical~benefits. Food preparation and serving=related occupations have the lowest average wage at $.10.47 per hour; but food servers often earn tips that supplement their wage income. The 25`i' percentile wages, however, are below tlie~'living wage levels for all but the office and construction..occupational categories, indicating that starting wages for new hires could be below the living wage..levels. It is important to note, though, that the wage data shown here are based on typical Sonoma County retail wages; the Proposed Project's employment structure would not necessarily provide lower wages than are normally found for retail workers in the area. Benefits. Benefit packages associated with different positions will.vary by tenant for part-time and full-time employees. Employee benefits at Target are summarized below: Health Care. Target paysahe majority of the costs for its employees' health care. On average, Target pays over 70 percent of an employee's health care premium, including 100 percent ofpreventive care, such as well baby care, immunizations and annual physicals. The company offers a variety of health care plans, including a traditional plan, an HSA plan, two HRA plans, and;an HMO plan err some locations. Both the traditional and flexible consumer health care plans have a cost share program under which Target pays 80 percent of costs once the deductible has been met: 401(k) Plan. All employees who are 21 years of age or older and have 1,000 hours of service are eligible to participate in Target's 401(k)plan. Target matches the employee's 401(k) deposits up to five percent of the employee's annual pay. All employee and employer contributions are 100 percent vested. Employee Discount Program. All Target employees have free access to.;anEmployee Assistance Program.(EAP), covering a variety of potential employee needs. .Store Discount. All employees and their families receive a discount on all products, including pr"escription drugs, purchased in a Target store. Benefitpackages for other tenants in the Proposed Project would vary by outlet and owner; and could vary from.extremely limited or no benefits up to or beyond the level. provided by Target, 48 ~-5C~ Summary of Employment Impacts East Washington Place is estimated to result in a net gain of 593 retail jobs in the Trade Area in 2011. The Proposed Project is estimated to generate 833 construction jobs, and 721 permanent jobs, with 667 of.these in the retail sector: Of the permanent jobs, slightly more than half are projected to be full-time jobs; an estimated 250 of the total permanent: jobs are associated with the Target anchor store. Retail employment in general is typified by a large component of part-time workers; the Proposed Project.is not extraordinary in its mix of full and part-time retail jobs. While.full-time work is often sought, and some part-time workers would choose full-time work given the option, part-time work is.more suitable for certain types of workers such as youths still in school, parents balancing child rearing and careers, and retirees seeking supplemental income. The project is expected to capture some sales from existing outlets, and those sales losses could result in reduced employment; estimated at 75 retail jobs in existing retail outlets in 2011. By 2016, however, overall retail sales in the universe of existing retail outlets would be above 2008 baseline levels, indicating that,overall retail employment would also be above baseline levels, although for some sectors existing stores would still have lower employment than in 2008. The increase in net retail employment in Petaluma related to the Proposed Project would be greater than levels projected by the Association of Bay Area Governments. for the same time period. Most of the permanent jobs at East Washington Place would be in retail occupations, but there would also be additional jobs in other areas such as food preparation and serving, building and grounds cleaningand maintenance, and office and administrative support. Estimated employee wages will vary depending on the particular occupation. Target reportedly pays competitive wages that are set at or above the market average for jobs with similar skills and responsibilities, but because wage information is proprietary, the project. sponsor did not provide BAE with typical wages for individual positions at Target. Nevertheless, employee earnings at Target and other tenants at East. Washington Place would likely be comparable to the prevailing market wages in the area for similar types of employment. The average wages for. sales and related occupations, office and administrative support occupations, and construction and extraction occupations exceed the City's Living Wage standard for employees without medical benefits. Food preparation and serving-related occupations have wages below the Living Wage, but,food servers often earn tips that supplement their wage income. While these averages are generally above the Living Wage, starting wages for new hires could be below the living wage levels. However, the Proposed Project's employment structure would not;necessarily provide lower wages than are normally found for retail workers in the area. Target,provides arange of benefits for employees, including a broad health care package paid for ~in part:by the employer,, a 4.01(k) plan with employer matching contributions, an employee assistance program covering a variety of potential employee:needs, and discounts at the store for employees and their families. Benefit`packages for other tenants in the Proposed Project would vary by.outlet~and owner, and could vary from extremely limited or no benefits up to or beyond the'level provided by Target. 49 ~~5 Fiscal Impact Analysis Overview The fiscal impact analysis:focuses on projecting the balance of ongoing municipal revenues and municipal service costs associated with the proposed East.Washington Place commercial development at buildout. Although development would not be completed by the end of 2009, all cost and revenue estimates are in current,, 2009, dollars. The primary focus of the fiscal impact analysis is on the City of Petaluma General Fund, which receives'the City's revenues for discretionary expenditures and funds the City's primary public municipal services. This analysis uses a combination of techniques to estimate the increases in costs and revenues. Where possible, the increases •in revenues are modeled followng'the manner in which they are collected and allocated to the City. For example, increases in property tax revenues are based on an estimate of the increase in assessed valuation associated with a given project component. In other cases, where this type of detailed modeling is not possible. due to lack of adequate data, BAE utilized revenue multipliers that represent the City's current average revenue per service populationZb. The same general approach applies to the service cost portions of the.model. Generally; this methodology presents a reasonably conservative analysis of the potential fiscal impacts of the proposed project. Table l 8 presents the development plan summary, including estimates of the number of employees as derived above, as well as an estimate of the total number of businesses for each use category Table 18: Proposed East Washington Place Development Plan Square Sq. Ft. Per New # of New Use Cate o Feet Employee Employees Businesses Apparel Stores 20,000 900 22 1 General Merchandise Stores. 138;851 n/a 250 1 Food Stores 10,800 400 27 1 Eating and Drinking Places 8,300 400 21 1 Home Furnishings and Appliances 39,000 900 43 1 Other Retail 145,000 n/a 304 13 Office 16;000 300 53 4 Total 377,951 721 22 Additional Service Population (a) 360 Note: (a) Service population equals resident population plus one-half the emp loyment population. Sources:. Re eric _Centers; Ci of Petaluma; Ba Area Econorriics 26 Service population equals the resident population plus one half of the number of employees. This scaling of employees represents the lower service demand of employees relative to residents. 50 ~~ Projected. General Fund Revenues This portion of the analysi$'projects the anticipated increase. in the City of Petaluma General Fund revenues from the proposed commercial development. The main focus of this analysis includes Property'Tax Revenues, Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle License Fees (ILVLF'), and Sales Tax revenues. Sales Tax Revenues. According to the retail impacts section of this report, the proposed project should generate sales of approximately $119.2 million, of which 93 percent are estimated to be taxable based on the proposed development program.Z~ The City receives slightly less than one percent of all taxable sales as Sales Tax revenues. Thus, the proposed project should generate approximately $l .1.million in sales tax_ revenues for the City General Fund. Table 15 shows the projected sales tax revenues from the Proposed Project. It should be noted that some portion of the development's sales. could come from existing retail within the City,.at least in the'short run. Thus, the short-term projected sales tax revenues are Likely overstated to some extent. However, as the retail impacts section of the analysis shows that overall citywide sales should grow over time, and all existing retail space should be re-absorbed in the long-run, these sales tax revenue projections represent a reasonable estimate for ongoing fiscal impacts. Table 19: Projected Sales Tax Revenues Total Percent Taxable Develo mentSumma Square Feet Sales Taxable Sales Apparel Stores 20,000 $7,200,000 100% $7,200,000 General Merchandise Stores 138,851 $44,016,000 85% $37,413,600 Food Stores 10,800 $2,537,000 30% $761,100 Eating and Drinking Places 8,300 $3,652,000 100% $3,652,000 Home Furnishings and Appliances 39,000 $21.,177,000 100% $21,177,000 Other Retail 145,000 $40,600,000 100% $40,600,000 2009 Sales Tax Revenues Dollars New Taxable Sales (a)_ $110,803,700 Cit 's Share of Taxable Sales 0.975% Total Sales Tax Revenues $1,080,336 (a) Based on Table 10 with adjustments for non-taxable sales. Adjustments are more conservative than ratios shown per Appendix D: Sources: Cit of Petaluma; BAE, 2008. ~~ Note that th"e sales estimates were in 2007 dollars, and have not been inflated for the 2009 dollars used in the fiscal impact analysis. Thus the estimate of sales tax generation may be conservative. 51 -J"~ Property Tag.Revenues. Basic property-taxes are equal, to one,,percent of total assessed .value. Since the project site is located within the Petaluma Community Development (PCD) area, the redevelopment agency receives, the majority of the property tax increment from increased assessed value. However, according to the City's redevelopment consultant, Seifel Consulting, the City"will:receive some portion of the tax increment. Starting in FY 09/10, other taxing entities will receive a statutory pass through equal to 20 percent. of the property tax increment, .to be allocated in proportion to each entity's share of the basic property tax.29 Since the City of Petaluma General Fund's Pre-ERAF allocation is 13.55 percent, the City will receive 13.55 percent of the 20 percent allocated to other taxing entities.30 As redevelopment allocation agreements were written before ERAF legislation, and the redevelopment agency passes the increment through to the City, the City's share is based on its~pre-ERAF allocation. However, it should be noted that the State has begun asking redevelopment agencies to contribute to ERAF.31 Should the State amend redevelopment law to require. ERAF payments, the City could receive less property tax revenues than this analysis projects. Since this property was ri a public use prior to its purchase by Regency Centers, the land value is effectively related to its development as a retail center; as a result, this fiscal analysis includes the entire property value in its calculation of fiscal impacts. To estimate the value of improvements, this analysis uses.a construction, cost method for determining the assessed value, with costs. provided by Regency Centers as shown in Appendix H. -Using the current assessed land value combined with new development costs as a-proxy for value, the proposed project would generate approximately $25,900 in annual property tax revenues for the City. Table 20 shows the projected property tax revenues from the proposed. project. Table 20: Projected Property Tax Revenues Zoos Pro a Tax'Revenues Dollars New Assessed Property Value:(a) $95,478,856 Basic Property~Tax as % of Assessed Value (b) 1.0% Other Taxing Entities Share (c) 20.0% Citv's Share of Increment (d) 13.55% ~TotalProperty Tax Revenues $25,875 (a) .Assessed value based on construction costs and assessed land value. Entire land value is used; these parcels were in public use prior to purchase for development,.so all Property tax revenue is new. See Appendix H for details. (ti) Property tax increment goes to redevelopment agency with some pass through back to City..General Fund. (cj Other taxing entities ihclude all government entities entitled to a share of the base Property tax,if this were not a Redevelopment Area, excepting those with contractual agreements (see Table 34). (d) Based on City's baseallocation, 13.55 percent. Sources: City of Petaluma; Sonoma County Auditor-Controller, Sonoma Coun Assessor's Office; SeifetConsultin , BAE, 2008. 28. Although:many properties are assessed taxes greater than.one percent ofassessed valuation, these additional. taxes are. for specific voter-approved purposes and are not available to the General Fund. 29 Seifel Consulting, 2009. 30 . , Ibid. 31 >bia:, s2 ~~~~ Property, Transfer Tax _Revenues. When a property changes ownership, the City collects property transfer taxes. These taxes total $3.10 per $1,000 of assessed value, of which the City collects $2.00. The' County collects the remaining $1.10. This analysis assumes that commercial property changes ownership every 20 years, or turns over at an annual: rate of five percent. Thus, the City can anticipate annual property transfer tax revenues of approximately $9,500, as shown in Table 21. It should be noted that these revenues could vary significaritly on an annual basis, depending on which:proj`ect components are sold in a given year. It may also be the case that the entire project remains under one owner, with transfer tax revenues only occurring rarely as the entire parcel is transferred.to'a new owner. Table 21: Projected Property Transfer Tax Revenues Apparel Stores General Merchandise Stores Food Stores Eating and Drinking Places Home' Furnishings and Appliances Other Retail Office Square Feet 20,000 138,851 10,800 8;300 39,000 145;000 16,000 2009 Pro e ~ Transfer Tax Revenues Dollars New Assessed Value $95;478,856 Annual Commercial Turnover Rate a 5% Amount of Assessed Value subject"to Turnover (b) $4,773,943 Transfer Tax Rate (c) $2.00 Net Increase to City Property Transfer Tax Revenues $9;548 (a) Shows the amount of assessed value subject.to turnover in a given year (b) Assumes that one twentieth'of commercial spaces turnover per year. (c) The property trarisfer tax rate is $3.10 per $1,000 in value, $2.00 of which goes to the City, while $1:10 goes to the County. City of Petaluma; Sonoma County Auditor-Controller; Sonoma County > Office; BAE; 2008. Property Tax In-Lieu of VLF Revenues. ~ Beginning.in the 2005-2006 fiscal. year, the State ceased to'provide backfilT funds to. counties and cities in the form of Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Fees (VLF) as they had through the 04-05 fiscal year. As a result of complicated financial restructuring enacted.as part of the State's'budget balancing process, counties and .cities now receive. revenues from the State in the form of what is known as property tax in-lieu of vehicle. license fees, or ILVLF'. 'This State-funded revenue sourceis tied to a city's total assessed. valuation.. In 2005-06, former vehicle license fee revenues were swapped for ILVLF revenues; which set the; local'. jurisdiction',s ILVLF "base." The base increases each year thereafter proportionate to,~he increase in total assessed valuation within the jurisdiction. Thus, if total 53 V ~~ I . assessed valuation increases by ten percent from one year to the next, the ILVLF base would increase byten percent. In order to calculate the increment in ILVLF revenues that would result from the development of the proposed project, the analysis first determines the total assessed value within the City, and the City's current year ILVLF revenues: The analysis then determines the percentage by which the project would increase the City's assessed valuation and applies that percentage increase to the current year's ILVLF revenues in order to determine the incremental amount of ILVLF attributable to the"new development. The improvements from the proposed project would generate a 1.28 percent increase the City's total assessed value, resulting inproject-generated ILVLF revenues of approximately $51,01 L It should be noted that the State could modify these revenue calculations between the current year and buildout. Table 12 shows the projected ILVLF revenues from the proposed project based on the current allocation formula. Table 22: Projected Property Taxln-Lieu of VLF (ILVLF) Revenues, Development Summary Square Feet Apparel Stores 20,000 General Merchandise Stores 138,851 Food Stores 1'0,800 Eating and Drinking Places 8,300 Home Furnishings and Appliances 39,000 Other Retail 145,000 Office 16,000 2009 ILVLF Revenues Dollars New Assessed Value $95,478,856 2008/09 Total Citywide Assessed Value $7,486,941,460 Percent Change in Total AV resulting from Development 1.28% 2008 ILVLF Revenues $4,000,000 Percent Increase from New Development 1.28% Net Increase to City ILVLF Revenues $51,017 Sources: City of 2008. 54 yr V ~r n Franchise Fee Revenues. The City collects franchise fees on its public utility usage. This analysis assumes that the proposed project would use garbage, cable, and gas and electric services provided within the City.. In total, the City collects $2.4 million in franchise fees, which translates into approximately $32 per service population. As the proposed project would generate a 360-person net service population increase, the City can expect to generate approximately $11,500 in additional franchise fees. Table 23 shows the projected annual franchise fee revenues from the proposed project. Table 23 Protected Franchise Fee Revenues 2009 FY 08/09 Budget Revenues Dollars Waste $1,200,000 Cable $750,000 Electric/Gas $440,000 Total Franchise Fee Revenues $2,390,000 Total Service Population (a) 74,974 Resident Population 58,925 Employment 32,097 Total Franchise Fee Revenues Per Service Population $31.88 New Franchise Fee.Revenues Associated with New Development Net New Employment 721 Net New Service Population 360 Revenue Per Service Poaulation $31.88 New Franchise Fee Revenues Associated with New Development $11,489 (a) Service Population estimated based on ABAG estimates. Service population equals the resident population plus one-half the employment population. Sources: ABAG; Ci of Petaluma FY 08/09 Bud et; BAE, 2008. License, Permits, and Fees Reveuues. The City collects revenues on licenses, permits, and fees. The City budget projects that in Fiscal Year 08/09, the City will collect approximately $580,000 in license, permits, and fee revenues, which translates into approximately eight dollars per service population. As the proposed project would generate a 360-person net service population increase, the City can expect to generate approximately $2,800 in additional license, permits, and fees revenues. Table 24 shows the projected annual license, permits, and fees revenues from the proposed project. Fines, Forfeitures,. and Penalties Revenues. The City collects revenues on fines, forfeitures, and penalties.:. The City budget projects that in Fiscal Year 08/09, the City will collect approximately $603,000 in f nes, forfeitures, and penalties revenues, which translates into approximately eight:dillars per service population. As the proposed project would generate a 36.0-person. net service population increase, the City can.expect":to generate approximately $2;900 in additional fines, forfeitures,: and penalties revenues. Table 25 shows the projected annual fines, forfeitures, and.penalties revenues from the proposed project. 55 E-~3 Table 24: Projected Licenses, Permits, and Fees Revenues. IFY (Total Service Population (a) Resident Population Emolovment Total Licenses, Permits, and Fees Revenues Per Service Population New Licenses, Permits, ahd Fees Revenues Associated with.New Development Net New Employment Net New Service Population Revenue Per Service Po ulation Total New Licenses, Permits, and Fees Revenues Associated with New Development (a) Service Population estimated`liased on ABAG estimates. Service population equals th population plus one-half the employment population. Sources: ABAG, Cit of Petaluma FY 08/09 Bud et; BAE, 2008. 2009 Dollars $580,000 74,974 58,925 32,097 $7.74 721 360 $7.74 $2,788 Table 25: Projected Fines, Forfeitures, and Penalties Revenues FY 08109 Budget Revenues Total Fines, Forfeitures, and- Penalties Total Service. Population (aj Resident Population Total Fines, Forfeitures, and Penalties Revenues Per Service Population New Fines, Forfeitures, and Penalties Revenues Associated with New Develo~ent Net New Employment Net New Service Population Revenue Per Service Population TotaLNew Fines, Forfeitures, and Penalties Revenues Associated with New Development. (a) Service Population estimated based on ABAG estimates. Service population equals the resi population plus one-half the employment population. Sources: ABAG; City of Petaluma FY 08/09 Budget; BAE; 2008. 2009 Dollars $603,000 74,974 58,925 32,097 $8.04 721 360 $8.04 $2;899 n 56 E-~~k Business License Revenues. The proposed expansion.would increase the business license fee revenues for the City, of Petaluma. Currently, all relevant business types that would be present in the projected. development:pay between 0.016 percent and 0.04.8 percent of total gloss receipts, or a maximum $45 for annual. license renewals. This analysis assumes that all of the businesses within the proposed project-would pay $45 per year for business licenses totaling $1,000 in annual City revenues. Table 26 shows the projected annual business license fee revenues from the proposed project. Table 26t Projected. Business License Revenues 2009 Business License Revenues Dollars Arinual Business Liven§e Revenuesper New or Existing Business $45.00 New Business License Revenues Associated with New Develo ment Number of New Businesses 22 . Revenue Per Business $45.00 Total New Business License Revenues Associated with New Development $990 Sources: Cit of Petaluma; BAE, 2008. Transient Occupancy Tax Revenues. Since the proposed project does not include a hotel, or additional residential units,, the City should not anticipate additional transient occupancy tax (TOT) revenues associated with the-new development. Projected General Fund Costs This portion of the analysis estimates the costs for the City of Petaluma to extend ongoing services to-the proposed project site. This analysis focuses on the impacts to the City General Fund, that is, the City's primary discretionary fund, which pays for key public services. Following are the costs analyzed within this report. Police Services. The Police department in Petaluma provides protective services to all City residents and workers. In total, the City spends approximately $16.1 million of discretionary funds on police services annually,. which translates into approximately $214 per service population. Since the proposed project would generate a 360-person net service population increase, •the proposed project"would generate an increase of approximately $77,200 annually in police services. In reviewing this finding, it is important to note that, according to Captain Dave Sears of the City of Petaluma Police :Department, the proposed project would probably not likely lead to a significant increase in service demand for police. There would .likely be additional traffic and shoplifting calls,. but these calls should have a minimal impact.on service demand. The Captain indicated that new residential units generate significantly higher service demand than commercial. uses. 'Since this project does•not contain a residential component; the estimate for new service 57 -CQC' demand associated with. the proposed project may overstate the~actual costs of service provision: Table 27 shows the projected.police costs associated with the proposed project. Table 27: Projected Police Costs 2009 FY 08/09 Budget Expenditures. Dollars Administration $1,651,450 Communications $1.,308,700 CAD%RMS ~ $379,750 Crime Prevention $438,800 Investigation $1,072,650 Patrol $9,060,850 Auto Theft $143,300 Traffic Safety $1,124,500 Parking Enforcement $298,450 Records $588,650 Total Police Department Expenditures $16,067,100 Total Service Population (a) 74,974 Residerit Population, , 58,925 Em to ment 32,097 Total Police Department ExpendituresPer'Service Population $214.30 New Police De artment Ex endifures Associated with New Develo ment Net New Employment 721 Net New Service Population 360 Revenue Per Service Po ulation $214.30 Total Police Department Expenditures Associated with New Development $77,235 (a) Service Population estimated based on ABAG estimates. Service population equals the resident population plus one-half the employment population.. Sources: ABAG; Ci of Petaluma FY 08/09 Bud et; BAE, 2008: Fire Services. The Fire Department in,Petaluma provides fire protection services to all City residents, and dispatch services for all EMS calls within the City. In total, the City spends approximately $7.8 million of discretionary funds on fire services annually, which translates into approximately$104 pei• service population. As the proposed project would generate a 360-person net service population increase, it would also result in an 'increase of approximately $37,400 annually in fir"e services. According to .Chief Larry. Anderson of the City of Petaluma.. Fire Department, the proposed project would not likely lead to a significant increase.in service demand for the Fire Department, as the project'"s replacing a school.and constitutes infill development. Table 28 shows the projected fire costs associated~with the proposed project. . 58 ~-~~ Table 2009 FY 08/09 Bud' et Ex enditures. Dollars Administration $569,750 Disaster Preparedness $6,650 Hazardous Materials $138,850 Prevention $306,250 Suppression $6,529,900 Suppression-Apparatus $105,550 Suppression -Building/Grounds $28,450 Suppression -Communications $2,000 Suppression -Supplies $56,750 Suppression - Trainin $37,650 Total Fire Department Expenditures ~ $7,781,800 Total SerJice Population (a) 74,974 Resident Population 58,925 Emplo ment 32,097 Total Fire DepartnienY Expenditures Per Service Population $103.79 New Fire De artment Ex enditures Associated with .New Develo ment Net New Employment 721 Net New Service Population 360 Revenue Per Service Po ulation ~ $103.79 Total Fire Department Expenditures Associated with New Development $37,407 (a) Service Population'estimated'based on ABAGestimates. Service population equals the resident population plus one-half the employment population. Sources: ABAG; City of Petaluma FY 08/09 Budget; BAE, 2008. Public Works. The Public. Works Department provides engineering, traffic, and maintenance to public infrastructure within the City. Currently, the City spends-approximately $4.3 million annually on Public Works services, or approximately $57 per service population. With the addition of 360 net new service population persons, the proposed project wottld generate approximately $20,500 in costs to the City annually. Table 29 shows the projected Public Works Department costs associated;with the proposed project. 59 ~~~~ Table 29: Projected Public .Works Expenditures zoos FY 08/09 bud et Ex endtures Dollars Total Public Works Expenditures (a) $4,259,700 Total Service Population (b) 74,974 Resident Population 58,925 Em to ment 32,097 Total Public Works Expenditures PerService Population $56.82 New Public Works Ex enditures Associated with.New Develo ment Net New Employment 721 Net IVewService Population 360 Revenue Per'Service Po ulation $56.82 Total Public Works ExpendituresAssociated with New Development $20,477 (a) Does hot include CIP expenditures. " (b) Service Population estimated based on,ABAG estimates. Service population equals the resident population plus one-half the employment population. Sources: ABAG; Cit of Petaluma FY 08/09 Bud et; BAE, 2008. Community Development Department: The Community Development Department for the City of Petaluma is responsible for providing planning and building services for the City. Currently, the City spends approximately $370,100 annually on these services, or approximately five dollars per service population. With the addition of 360 net new service population persons from development, the proposed project would generate approximately $1,800 in costs to the City annually. Table 30 shows the projected costs to the Community Development Department associated with-the proposed project. 60 E-l~g Table 30: Projected' Community Development Expenditures 2009 FY 08109 Budget Expenditures Dollars Total Community Development Expenditures, $370,100 Total Service Population (a) 74,974 Resident Population 58,925 Em to ment 32,097 Total Community Development Expenditures Per Service Population $4.94 New Commtini Development Expenditures Associated with New Development Net New Employment 721 Net New~Service Population 360 Revenue Per Service Po ulation $4.94 Total Community Development Expenditures Associated with New Development $1,779 (a) Service Population estimated based on ABAG estimates. Service population equals the resident population plus one-half the employment population. Sources: ABAG; Ci of Petaluma,FY 08/09 Bud et; BAE, 2008. General Government. General Government refers to the administrative functions of the City, including the City Clerk, City Manager, City Attorney, Administrative Services, Finance, and Non-Departmental functions. This analysis assumes that asnon-general government functions increase within the City, General Government functions would increase proportionately. In this case, the General Government. functions account for approximately 6.5 percent of all General Fund expenditures. Thus, a $100,000 increase in.other City services would result in a $6,500 increase in General Government. ervices. Table 31 shows the General Government expenditures as a percentage ofnon-General Government expenditures, and shows that given the estimated costs ofnon-General Government functions from the increased service population, General Government costs would be:approximately $9,000 annually. Parks and Recreation and Animal Services. Although the City of Petaluma provides park and recreation and animal services to the city, these services are almost solely used by residents. Since the proposed project does not include any new residential development, the City should not anticipate additional service costs resulting from the proposed project. 61 i~ Table 31,: Projected General Government Expenditures 2009 FY 08109 Bud et Expenditures ~ Dollars City Council $147,400 City Attorney $399,850 City Clerk {a) $234,700 Finance ~ $1,283,800 Human Resources $341,100 Total General Government Expenditures ~ $2,406,850 Total Non-General Government General Fund Expenditures $36,802,800 Total General Government Expenditures as a Share of Non-General Govemmenf Expenditures 6.5% New General Government Expenditures Associated with New Development (b) $8,953 (a) Does not include elections: expenditures,, as the proposed project does not'iriclude new residential uriits. (b) Based on seven percent of non-gdverhmental expenditures (police, fire, public works, and commu nity development) associated with the proposed project. Sources: ABAG; City of Petaluma:FY 08/09 Budget; BAE, 2008. Projected Net Fiscal General Fund Balance As shown in Table 32, this analysis estimates that the proposed project generates a net fiscal surplus of approximately $1.0 million annually to the City of Petaluma General Fund, owing largely to the sales taxes generated. This surplus.represents 2.8 percent of the City's General Fund budget, indicating that the proposed project would have a relatively significant positive impact on the City's overall fiscal position. Table 32: Net Fiscal Impact of Proposed Project Revenues 2009 Dollars Sales Tax Revenues $1,080,336 Property Tax Revenues, $25,878 Property Transfer Tax Revenues $9,548 ILVLF Revenues $51,011 Franchise Fee Revenues $11,489 Licenses, Permits, and Fees Revenues $2,788 Fines, Forfeitures, and Penalties Revenues $2,899 Business License,Revenues $990 SUBTOTAL: Revenues $1,184,935 2009 Costs (a) Dollars Police $77,235 Fire $37,407 Public Works $20,477' Community Development $1,779 General Government $8,953 SUBTOTAL: 'Costs $145; 851 Net Fiscal Impact $1,039,084 (a) As the developmerif does not include any new residential units, the analysis assumes no increase in costs forthe Parks & Recreation and Animal'Services Departments, since workers who. do not live within the City are not likely to use these services. Source: BAE, 2009. 62 L ~~ Non-General Fund Revenues and Costs This chapter of the analysis evaluates the potential impacts to non-General Fund costs and revenues including development impact fees, other public revenue benef ts, and public contributions. Development Impact Fees In addition to providing ongoing municipal services to the new development, the City of Petaluma may also need to increase its capital facilities, including fire. suppression and law enforcement facilities,, in order to maintain current service standards acid serve new development. The City uses development-impact fees to fund these improvements. AB1600 Requirements. The fee per new development must meet the nexus requirements set forth inAB 1600. AB 1600, adopted~in 1987 as the "Mitigation Fee Act;" requires that new development only pay its fair share of capital facility needs. Cities generally update their fees every few years to keep in compliance with AB 1600 requirements as `infrastructure and facility needs change. Projected Development Impact Fee Revenues. In May 2008, the City of Petaluma adopted a series of impact fee mitigation studies that.set citywide development impact fees. Table 33 shows the development impact fees that the City would collect from the proposed East Washington Place development. Fees are estimated to total approximately $10.5 million. As ABI600 requirements limits the amount of development fees a city can charge based on the nexus between new development and capital facility needs, and the City recently adopted the current fee structure, the City should'not suffer any capital facility shortfalls between need and fees collected resulting from the proposed development. 63 V ~~ Table, 33: 'R~ojected bevefopmenf Impact Fee Revenues Uriit of Building Total * Fee;T a Land Use Type Fee Measurement Sq. Ft Fee Aquatic Center Facilities Commercial $62 1,000 square feet 361,951 $22,441 Office $59 1,000 square feet 16,000 $944 Commercial Linkage Commercial $2.08 Square Foot 16,000 $33,280 Retail $3.59 Square Foot 361,951 $1,299,404 Community Center`Facilites Commercial $261 1,000 square feet 361,951 $94,469 ' Office $249 1,000 square feet 16,000 $3,984 Fire Suppressiom~Facilities Retail Uses $144 1,000 square-feet 361,951 $52,121 Office Uses $138 1,000 square feet 16,000 $2,208 Law Enforcement Facilities RetaiF $217 1,000aquare feet 361,951 $78,543 Office $208 1,000 square feet 16,000 $3,328 Library Facilities Commercial $111 1,000 square feet 36],951 $40,177 Office $106 1,000'squarefeet 16,000 $1,696 Open Space Acquisition -Commercial $1,127 Unit 18 $20,286 Office. $1,078 1,000 square feet 16,000 $17,248 Park Land Acquisition Commercial $608 1,000 square feet 361,951 $220,066 Office $581 1,000 square feet: 16,000 $9,296 Park Land Development Commercial $1,041 1,000 square feet 361,951 $376,791 Office $996 1,000 square feet 16,000 $15,936 Public Facilities Commercial $248 1,000squarefeet 361,951 $89,764 Office $237 1,000 square feet 16,000 $3,792 Traffic (Locally Preferred) (a) Office $15,198 1,000 square feet 361,951 $5,500,931• Commercial/Shopping $14,723 1,000 square feet 16,000 $235,568 Wastewater (b) $914,037 Water Capacity Non-Residential $18,078 1" metes/business 21 $379,638 Any Land Use $45,195 2" meter/busiress 1 $45,195 Storm Drain Commercial $9,000 Acre 33.7 $303,300 Parking Commercial $20,000' space n/a (c) n/a Public:Art Commercial 1% construction budget $71,665,354 $716;654 • GRAND TOTAL $10,481,097 (a) Provides a more conservative estimate: (b) Estimates from City-allow for water cgnservation credits. (c) Onlyapplies'td projects!ih.the Central. Petaluma Specific Plan area. ' Sdurces: ;Gifu of'Petaluma;,BAE, 2009. Other~P,ublic:Revenue Benefits The City could. also anticipate,additional benefits from property tax increment accruing to the Redevelopment Agency or through developer land dedication, exactions, or developer-funded imprgvements°, 64 .. ~' ~~ Redevelopment Funds. Siriee the proposed project is located within the Petaluma Community Development (1'CD) Area redevelopment area, the City's redevelopment agency will receive additional benefits from the property tax increment. According to the City's redevelopment consultant, Seifel Consulting, the redevelopment agency will' keep the largest share of the property tax increment, which' equals one percent of the net new assessed value.32 The redevelopment agency then passes a portion of the incre"merit through"to other agencies, including the County for administrative services, the County General Fund and County Library, which set up contractual pass through agreements with the redevelopment agency, and other,taxing entities. As Table 34 shows, the redevelopment agency retains approximately 49 percent of the total property tax increment„which amounts. to approximately $472, YO0 annually. Table 34: Projected Redevelopment Agency Revenues ~ 2009 Redevelopment Agency Revenues Dollars Property Tax Increment New Assessed Property Value (a) $95,478,856 Basic Property Tax as a Percentage ofAssessed Value 1.0% Total Property Tax Increment $954,789 Less: County Admin Share 1_.278%. Less: Other Taxing Entities Share, Statutory Pass Througtis (b) 20.000% Less: Contractual Pass Throughs (c) 29.280% Redevelopment Agency's Share of Property"Tax Increment 49.442% Totat Redevelopment Agency Revenues $472,067 (a) Assessed value based on construction costs and assessed land value. Entire land value is used; these parcels were in public use priorto purchase for development, so all property tax revenue is new. See Appendix H for details. (b) Other taxing entities include all government entities entitled to a share of the base. property tax if this were note Redevelopment Area, excepting those with contractual agreements as shown in next`item footnote: City share of this 20% is shown in Table 20. (c) County General Fund and County Library.contractually get pass th~oughs equal to 96 percent of their base allocations (28.6zand 1.9 percent respectively). Sources: City of Petaluma; Sonoma County Auditor-Controller; Sonoma County Assessor's Office; Regency Centers; Seifel Consulting; BAE, 2008'. Developer Contributions. As part of the development agreement; if the development moves forward, the developer will improve and dedicate Kenilworth Drive to the City. However, as the amount of land dedicated~and types of improvements have not yet been specified, it is not,yet possible to estimate the additional City benefits. Currently, These are the only planned developer contributions: -.However, the City-has also requested`that;the•developer'to dedicate an acre for interchange improvements, the value of which would be approximately $1 million,33 32 Since this property was in a public use prior to the beginning of the development process, all of the property value is associated:with the tax increment, with the baseline value assumed at zero. 33 City of Petaluma staff 65 E'~3 Public Contributions to 'Proposed Project Finally, this analysis examines the cost to the City of public contributions:. Such contributions could include land write downs, tax rebates or refunds, below market or contingent loans, site acquisition or preparation costs, fee waivers or payments,, and unfunded infrastructure and public improvement costs. According to Community Development Director Mike Moore, the City is not planning to extend any of these payments to the East Washington Place development. Thus, no public contribution costs should accrue to the City.. Summary of Non-General Fund Revenues and Costs The City's development impact fees have been recently .updated, so the fees of approximately $10.4 million should cover infrastructure and other. one-time public costs associated with the Proposed Project. The Petaluma Community Development Commission should also benefit greatly from the tax increment, since the project is in the Petaluma Community Development Area; the project is projected to generate approximately $472,.100 in annual tax increment based on current allocation formulas. The City will also benefit from the developer's plans to improve and dedicate Kenilworth Drive to the City. Currently, the City has no plans to make any public contributions such as land write-downs, tax rebates or refunds, below-market or contingent loans to the project, or to pay for any other costs associated with the development of the project. 66 ~~ Appendix A: 'Trade: Area Census Tracts County Tract Sonoma 1501 Sonoma 1502.01 Sonoma 1502:02 Sonoma 1503.02 Sonoma 1503.03 Sonoma 1503.04 Sonoma 1506.01 Sonoma 1506.02 Sonoma 1506.03 Sonoma 1506.05 Sonoma 1506.06 Sonoma 1507.01 Sonoma 1507.02 Sonoma 1508 Sonoma 1509.01 Sonoma 1509.02 Sonoma 1510 68 ~~ Appendix B: Unemployment and Labor Force. Trends in Civilian Labor Force Petaluma 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 November 2008 {a) Unem- Labor Employ- Unemploy- ployment Force a ment ment Rate 31,200 30,200 1,000 3.0% 31,800 30,700 1,100 3.3% 31,700 30,300 1,500 4.6% 31,300 29,800 1,600 5.0% 37,500 30,100 1,400 4.5% 31,,,500 30;200 1,300 4.0% 31';800 30,600 1,200 3.6% 32,200 31,000 1.,300 4.0% 33,200 31,300 2,000 Change, 2000-2007 Number 1,000 800 300 Percent 3% 3% 30% Sonoma Coun Unem- Labor Employ- Unemploy- ployment Force a merit ment Rate 253,100 244,600' 8,500 3.4% 257,900 248,400 9,500 3.7% 258,100 244,900 13,100 5.1 254,800 240,900 13,900 5:5% 256,100 243,400 12,700 5.0,% 256,200 244;700 11,400 4.5% 258(900 .247„800 10;400 4.0% 262,000 250;500 1.1,600 4.4% 5.9% 270,500' 252,900 17;500 6.5% 8,900 5,900 3,100 4% 2% 36% Notes: Civilian Labor Force refers to workers by place of residence. Sum may not equal parts due to independent rounding. Data. represent annual averages of monthly employment data. Uses benchmarks from March 2007. (a) Preliminary. 'Sources: California Employment Development Department; Bay Area Economics, 2008. 69 Appendix C-1 :; Petal"ulna Taza6le Retail Sales Trends, 1997 tot2007 (Adjusted for Inflation). City,of Petalumaj:Sales in 2007`$000 (a);(bj Apparel:Std~es General Merchandise Stores Food Store§ Eating,and,Drinking Paaces Home.Fumishings',and Appliances Building Materals~and Farm Implements Auto:Dealers Arid Autoj'Supples Service!.Stations ' OtherRetail`„Stores Retail Stores Total 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004- 2005 2006 2007 $27,833 $30,055 $28,842 $30,521. $29,826 $28,059 $28,499 $39,092 $47,089- $50;415. $65;163'; $54,344 $60,076 $65,420 $65,632 $67,659 $66,170 '$63;365 $59;682 . $$6;334' $55;087' $51,054: $46;031 $46;166 $48;142 $49,229 $53;825: .$56;250 . .$57,889 $59,309 $59,642 $59;829 $58;,100 $56,002 $58;862 $62,602 $66,977 $70,635 $71,186 $73;529 $74;528; $76;872 $80;498. .. $84;687 $17,251 $18;294 $18,365 $20;956'. $18,070 $19;51.0 :$18;053 $17,220 $17,664 $16;457 $131324' $34,198. $35;063 $36,680 $43;042: ~ $37,517 $40;078. $41;509 $44;843 $45,000 $40;328 $46;226 $161,112• $197,ST8 $253,726 $293,22T $304,741 $31~Z,920 $327,462. $329;1.18 $322,47,1: $302,244 > $268;358, $46,288 $42;459 $5,1',899 "$62;082 .$60;320. ~ $52;156 $56;385 $65,233 $67,967 $81;,019 $87;978 $62,493; $67;684 $81;254 $91;448' ~ `.$89,690: $91;445 $92,1,12 $100,600 $100,964, $98,`521 $83,053 $505,551 ~ $556;477 ,$647,132 $723;1'1,5' $732;284' $742,775 !$758;803' $789,623• $794,004. $784;398 $757,943 Easf Washington Place Retail Types (c) $263;953 ,$287;137 $304,627 $324;753 $§29,706 $$32,620 _ '$333;446 .$350;429 $358,566 5360,807 $355,381 Petaluma Safes per Capita in 2007 $ (d) Apparel Stores General Merchandise Stores Food Stores Eating and Drinking Places Home Furnishings and Appliahces , Building Materials and,Farm.lmplements Auto;Dealers and Auto Supplies Service Stations Other Retail Stores ' Retail Stores Total 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001. 2002 2003 2004: '2005.' 2006 2007 $558 $588 ;$550 $560 $538 $503 $51'1 $697 -$836 $893 $1,148 $1,089 $1,1.76 $1,247 $1,203. $1,221 $1,187 $1,135 $1,065 $1,000 $976 $900 $922 $903 $918' $902 $971 $1;009 $1,037 $1,058 $.1,059 $1,060 $1;024 $T,122 $1,152 $1,194 $1,228' $1,274. $1,277 $1;318` $1,329 $1;365 $1,426 $1;492 $346, $358 $350 '$384 $326 $350 $323' $307 $394' $291. $235 $685 $686 ~$7~3 $Z69 $677 $719 .$744:- $B00 $799 5714 $81'5' $3;228 $3,871_ $4;838. .$5;375., . ~ $5;497 $S,Z05 $5,868' , $5;871, $5,724. $5,354" $4;729; $927 $831 $990 $,1,138'' $1;088" $936 $1,010 $1,164 .$1,206 $1,435. $1-;550' 51';252; $,1,324'. $1,5413 $1,676' $1;618' $,1,641 $1,651 $1,795 $1,792 $1,245- $1;4645 $10',730; $10,890 $72,340 $13;256' - ,$13,21;0 $13;328. $13;598 $14;086' $14,094.. . $13,894 $13;357 East. Washington Place Retail Types (c) $5,289 $5;501 $5;809 $5;953 $5;948 $5,968 55;975. $6,251' $6,365 56;391 $6;263.. Population 49;907 51,102 52,443 54;550 55;435 55,730 55;804 56,057 56,337. 56;455 56;743 (a) Retail sales have been adjusted[to 2007 dollars based on the Taxable Sales Deflators calculated'by the State Board.of Equalization (BOE). (b) Analysis excludes all non-retail outlet's (business and personal services) reporting taxable sales. (c)' Excludes Building"Materials, Auto,, ahd ServiceStation:categories. (d) Per capita sales calculated based on State Board of Equalization reportedaales and annual Department of Finance population estimates benchmarked to the decennial Census Sources: State„Board,of Equalization; 2000 U.S. Census; State Department of Finance; Bay Area Economics, 2008. o Appendix C=2: Sonoma:City Taxable RetaiLSales Trends, 1997 to 2007 (Adjusted for Inflation) City of'SonomaSales in>2007 5000 (a),(b) (c) AppareLStdres • General- Nlerchandise;$tdres (c) Food_Stores Eating!_and Drinking Places Home Furnishings:=and`Appliances "Building Materials*and Farm Implemehts (c) Auto Dealers aiid Auto Supplies .Service Sfatidns Other'~Retail Stores -. Refal Stores. Total Sonoma Sales`,per Capita in 2007 $ (c) (d) Apparel,'Stores General Merctiahdise Stores (c) Food Stores Eating and Drinking Places Home Fumishings and Appliances Building Materials arid Farm Implements (c) Auto Dealers and Auto Supplies Service Statidns Other Retail Stores Retail Stores Total'(b) 1997' 1998 1999- 2000 200T 2002 2003 2004 2005' 2006 2007 $5;421 -$5,198 $6'270 $7;354: $7;852 $8,343 $7;508 $7,476 $7,633 $7,667 $8,612 $17,167 $17;534 $18;009; $17;530. $'18,799% $16;982• $17;599 $17,589 $17,059 $1,7,072. $18,049 $29,983 $23,472 $24;195 $24,621' $26,413` $27;523' $27,192 $27,336 $27,110 $26,546 $29,835 $27,022.. $30;202 $39;300 $34;269 $36;859' $38;091 $40,709 $41,830 $43,807 $42,100 $41;311 $3,491 $4;27,3' $4,654 $6;290' $6;458 $5',200 $4,584 $4;493 $5;208 $5,669 $6,174 $15,661' $15;699' $17.,302 $12,445 $17;390 $17:;875 # # # # # $20,799 $22;562:, $26;284• _ $24;613:• x$28,261' $28;399 $26,289 ~~ $25;096 $20,831. $17;657 $22,954 $9,820 $9;611 $13;7825 $17;572' $16;944., $1b;124 $16,380 $19,38,1 $19,653 $20,598' $20,844 $15,284, i $15;986° $17;275 $18;535 $20;306', $20;179 $38,317 $40,730 $42,639 $43,62ti, $39;292 $136,66T $145;038 $?59,069. $4,68;234 $179;282 ~ $179;71,7 $178,580. • . $183,930' ,$183;940 $180;929 $1.87,071 .1997.. 1998 1999. 2000 2001 2002 T '2003' 2004 '2005 2006 2007 $fi1,1' $575' $688" $293, $827 - $881 $785 $770 ,$780' $779 $870 :$1,936' $1;939 $1.,975 $1.,890 $1,979 $2,004. $1,839 $1;811„ $1`;744; $1,734 $1,823 $2,479. $2;595. $2j654 $2;655 $2,281 $2;905 $2,842 $2,81;4' $2,771 $2,697 $3,014 $3,048 $3;339" $3,433 $3;695 $3,881. $4,021. $4,254' $4,306 $4,478: $4,277 $4,174 $394 $528 $510 $678 $680 $549 $479 $463 $532 $576 $624 $1;768 $1;736 $1,898 $1,881 $],831' $1,887• # # # # # $2;346' $2;495 $2,883 $2,654 $2,975 $2;998 $2,747 $2;583` $2,129 '$1,794 $2,319 $1;107 $1,063 $1,511 $1,895 $1,784 $1,596 $1,712 $1,995 $2,009 $2,092 $2,106 $1;724 $1,768' $1,895 $1,998 $2;138 $2,130 :. $4,004, $4,193 $4,359. $4;439 $3,970 $15,413 $16;037 $17,446 $18,138 $18,826- $18,969 $18,662 $18;935 $18,802 $18;380 $18;900 Population 8,867 - 9;044. 9;118 9;275 9;498 9,474 9,b69 9,714' . 9,783 ~ 9,844 9,898. (a) Retail sales have been adjusted to 2007 dollars based on he Taxable SalesDeflatdrscalculateii'by, the StatelBdard of'Equalization (BOE), (b) Analysis excludes all non-retail outlets (business and pe~sonalservices)' reporting taxable sales: (c) A "#" sign_iritlicates data.supressed to preserve confiden4tality,dueto fouroc fewer diitlets or sales of more-than 80% of'the-category in one store:...°Suppressedsales have~tieen combined with Other Retail Stores, so evaluation of changesin the Other'Retail category should`take;this into cohsideration. (d) Per capita sales celculated'tiased'on State Board of Equalization reported sales acid anhual Department of Finance population estimates benchmarked to the decennial Census. ' Sources: State BoardPOf Equalization; 2000 U.S: Census; State Departmentof Finance; Bay Area Economics, 2008. (C' 7.1 Appendix.C-3: Novato Taxable Retail;Sales Trends, 1997 to 2007 (Adjusted for lnflation- City of Novato Sales in 2007$000 (a) (b) (c) Apparel Stores General Merchandise Stores Food Stores Eating and Drinking•P.laces Hdme Furnisfiings and Appliances Building Materials,and Farmamplements Auto Dealers and.Auto Supp_lies_ Service Stations- Other Retail Stores Retail Stores Total 1997` 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 -2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 $21,846 $19;787 $19;161 $23,304 $23;658 $22,420 $22,655 $23,326 $22,256 $25,972 $26,815 $144,664 $160,014 $170',754 $177,782 $174,263 $175,437 $172,301 $174,775 $175,886 $177,516 $175;419 $28,278 $31,413 $33;605 $33;268 $33,807 $33,734 $32;320 $30,937 $30,882 $32;992 $33;440' $47,101 $50;201.' $53,313 $57,761 $59,494 $62,251 $62;280 $63,577 $64,549 $65,985 $69,52.1 $8,260 $9,297 $10,547 $12,149 $11,851 $12;366 $12;.1.10 $;12;018 $12,719 $12,353, $12,650 $17;285 $18;563 $21,697 $22,681 $24,690 $24,678 $24;540 $26;094 $27,345 $26,405. ' $25 356 $54;561 $66;681 $73,922 $80,915 $86,412 $92;243. $87;846 $102;664 $106,480 $105,546 $98;845' $32,190 $28;238 $29;445 $31,310 $26,871 $28;465' $33;805' $41,139 $48,970 $62,228 $66;37,5 $75,915 $96;566 $101;164. $97,977 $93,007 $71,385 $74;315', $83;384• $89;783, $91',692 $87;040'a $430;098. $480;760,. $513,609 $537,167 $534,045 $522;979 $522,172.- ,$564;99;5 $578,870. ,$6.00,688 $595;4,61 EasYWashington Place Retail Types (c) 5326;063 $367;278_ $388,544 $402,261 $396,073 $372;593 $375;980 $388;018 $396;075 $406,509 $404,885 Novato Sales per Capita in 2007 $ jd) Apparel Stores GeneraLMi3~chandise Stores Food Stores. Eating and Drinking Places Home Furnishings and Appliances Building Materials and Fann Implements Auto Dealers and Auto Supplies Service.Stations Other Retail Stores Retail Stores Total East Washington Place Retail Types (c) Population 1997 1998 1999. '2000' 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 .- 2006 2007 $486 $434 $415 $489 $490 $460 $465 $471 ~ $441 $509 $508 $3;218 $3;509 $3,702 $3,733 $3,606 $3,598'. $3;533 $3,529 $3,487 $3,476 $3,326 $629 $689 $729 $699 $700. -$692' $663 $625 $612 $646 $634 $1,048 $1,101 $1,156 $1,213 $1,231 $1,277 $1,277 $1,284 $1,280 $1;292 $1,318 $184 $204 $229 $255 $245 $254 $248 .$243 $252 $242 $240 $384 $407 $470 $476 $511 $506 $503 $567 $542 $517 $461 $1;214 $1,462 $1,603 $1,699 $1';788 $1;892 $1;801 $2,174 $2,111 $2,067 $1,874 $716 $619 $638 $657 $556 $584 $693 $831' $971'_ $1,219 $1;259 $1_;688 $2,118 $2,193 $2,057 $1,925 $1,464 $1;524 $1,583 $1;780 $1,796' $1,650 $9;565 $10,543: $11,136 $11,278 $11;052. $10;726 $10,707 $11,405., $17,475_ $11,753' $11,291, $7,252 $S;U54 $8,424 $8;446 44,960 46,600 46,123 47,630 $8,196 '.$7;744 •$7;209 $7,834 $7,861 $7;960 $7;677 48,323 48,760 48;269 49;632 50;447 51,056 52;737 (a) Retail sales have ,been adjusted,to 2007 dollars based on the Taxable Sales Deflators calculated byahe State Board of Equalization (BOE). (b) Analysisexcludes all non-retail outlets (business ahd personal services) reporting taxable sales, (c) ExGudes Building Materials; Autq;'and`Service Station categories. (d) Percapita sales calculated. based on State Board of Equalization reported sales and annual Department of Finance population estimates benchmarked to the decennial Census. Sources:. State Board of Equalization; 2000 U.S. Census; State Department of Finance; Bay Area Economics, 2008. cc 0 72 , Appendix C-4`. Rohnert Park Taxable'Retail Sales Trends,. 4997 to 2007 (Adjusted for Inflation) `; OQ 1997 1998 1999 2000 3001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 $7,132 $4,052 $8,614 $10,202 $9,952 $11,670 $11,212 # # # # $83,655 $94,386 $93;341 $95,554 $100,136 $125,658 $188,377 $202,731 $211,870, $214,634 $217,032 $28,544 $30,823 $32,622. $33,826 $34,770 $37;413 $38;990 $41,831 $41,709 $41,1.10 $37,170 $41,740 $46,622 $51,185 $54,739 $57,392' $59;606 $64,179 $70,177 $73;606 $74,832 $75,291 $18;525 $14,331• $28,018 $30;281 $32,782 $55;924 $49,841 $46,774 $47,827 $36,529. $40,211' $81;691 $89,441 $101;315 $107,416 $108,464 $107,829 $111,215 $122;675 $109;310 $103,094: $76,206 $15,709:. $19,033 $17,]15` $24;527 $24;710 $18,293 $21;276 $20,343 _ $19;0]8 $19,758 $27;947 $23;696 $22,041 $26;833 $31,893 $30;120.. $28,422 $31,039, $30,391 '$32;327'' $35;132 $38',814, $56;427' $5'1,131. _ $46;893' $66,439 $61;296 $59,831 _ $60;81.2;, :. $74,193 .$81;619 $80,343 $61;219 $357„127 ',$373,861 "$¢05;937 $454,857 $459,;623 $505,146 •$576,742 $611,320 $613;089 $607;438 $575;892 East Wa§hington Place Retail Types (d) $236;023 $243,346 $260,673;. $291',021 :$296`,329 $350,102 :$413;212 $437,711 $452,434 $449,454 $432,930 City ofRohnert ParkSales'in 2007"$000((a) (b) (c) Apparel Stores ' General'Nlerchantl_ise Stores FoodrStores Eating and Drinking Places Home~Furnistiings and Appliances Building Materials and Farm Implements Auto. Dealers and;Auto Supplies Seniice Statidris Other;Retail5tores; RetaiLStores Total' Rohnert Park Sales per Capita in 2007 $ (c) (e) Apparel Stores General Merchandise Stores Food Stores Eating and Drinking Places Home Furnishings and Appliances Building Materials and Farm Implements Auto,pealersand Auto Supplies Service Stations OtherRetail Stores Retail Stores,Total (b) East'Washington Place Retail Types (d) 1997' _:1998' 1999 _2000 2001 2002 2003 2004- 2005 2006 2007 $176 $98 $205 $242 $2351 $277 $264 # # # # $2;066 $_ 2,285 $2,221 $2,262 $2,369 $2,978 $4,442 $4,798 $5;017 $5,092 $5;074 $705 $746 $776 $801 $823 $887 $919 $990 $988 $960 $869 $1,031 $1,177 $1,218 $1,296 $1,358 $1,413 $1;513 $1,661 $1,743 $1,747 $1,760 $457 $347 $667 $716 $775 $1,325 $1,175 $1,107 $986 $853 $940 $2;017 $2,165 $2,411 $2,543 $2,566 $2,555 $2,622 $2,908 $2;589 $2;407 $1,782 $388 $461 $407' $581 $585 $445 $502 $481. $450 $461 $653 $585 $534 $839 $755 $713 $674' $732 $719 $766 $820 $907 $1,393 $1,238. $1;116• $1,573 $1,450 $1,418 $1,;429 $1,756 $1,933. $1,876" $9,431. $8;819 $9;049 $9;659 $10,769 $10,873 $11,971 $13,599 $14;467 $14,518 $14,1.85• . $13,464 $5;828 $5;890 $6;203 $6;890 ;$7,010 $8,297 $8,743 ~ $10,359 $10;714 $10;495 $10;122 Population 40,495 41,314 42,02¢ 42,236 42;272 42,195 42;412 42,256 42,229 42,824 47,272 (a) Retail sales have been adjusted to 2007 dollars based on the Taxable Sales Deflators calculated by the State Board of Equalization (BOE). (b) Analysis.exclude§ all non-retaihoutlets (business and personal services) reporting.taxable sales. (c) A "#'` sign indicafes data supressed to preserve confidentiality.due to'fdur or fewer outlets o~ sales of more than 80% of the category in one store. Suppressed sales have been combined with Other Retail Stores, (d) Excludes;Building Materials, Auto, and Service Station categories. (e) Per capita sales calculated based on.State'Board of Equalization reported sales,and annual Department,of Finance population estimates benchmarked to the decennial Census. Sources: State Board„of'Equalization; 2000 U.S. Census; State Department of Finance; Bay Area Economics, 2008 73 AppendixC-S: Sonoma`County Taxable Retail Sales Trends, 1997 to_2007 (Adjusted for Inflation) t~l ~- Q X'' Sonoma County Sales in_2007 $000 (a) (b) Apparel Stores General Merchandise Stores Food Stores Eating and.Drinkirig Places Home Furnishings and;Appliances Building:Materials and Farm Implements Auto Dealers and,Autb S_ upplie_s Service Stations Other. Retail Stores Retail Stores Total East`Washington Place. Retail Types (c) Sonoma County Sales per Capita in 2007 $ (d) Apparel Stores General Merchandise Stores Food Stores Eating and Drihking Places Home Furnishings and Appliances Building Materials and Farm Implements Auto Dealers and Auto Supplies Service Stations. Other Retail Stores Retail Stores TotaF(b) East,Washington Place Retail Types (d) Population 1997,. 1998 1999 • 2000 2001 .2002 2003 2004_ 2005 2006 2002 $135;292 $139,357 $144,293 $162;552 $174,696 $179,581 $187,827 $209,478'' $231,840 $239;661 $258;991 $582;220 $655,693 $718,682 $753,903 $777,063 $789;126 $827,183 $841,178 $840;160 $841_,01,1 $845;947 $321,708 $330,763 $348;222 $365,665 $383,476 - $390;265 $398;995 $403;279 $406,883 $406;985. `$398;084' $388;070- $417,957 $441,990. $475;864 $496,558 $507,672 $524,6,16 $542,924 $565,703 $573,896. $592;801 $161,053' .$176,015 $201,763 $232,059 $227,132. $249,830 $248,690 $251,449 $243,958 $236;820 $222,:132. $432;281 $462;556 $542,477 $580,471 $600;338 $613,612' $635,338 $707,690. $732,541 $732;812` :$61:1;581 $690,425, $815,006 $968;080 $7,114;306 $1,145,340 $1;,146;561 $1,154,591 $1,149;315' $1,115,741 $1,042;668 $1;033;898; $297;848 $267,;108 $312;364 $367,-198 $370;082 ;$338;3'12 $387;075 $434;660 $479,693 $525;839: $582;426' $644,054 $685;297 $741-,903 $842;307 $839,301: $848,892 $859,57fi $907;733 $951,305 $944;493' $858,737 $3,652,952 $3;949,7531 $4,420;494 $4;894,345 $5,013;986`- $5;063,856 $5;223;831- $5,447;907 $5;567,825 '.$5,54Q184, $5;404,597` 52,232;398'. $2,405,082 $2,597,554' $2;832',371 $2,898;227 $2;965;372 $3;046,827 $3;156;042. $3;239,850 $3,242;865 $3;176;697 1997 1998 1999- 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005: 2006 2007, , $312 $3.15 `$3221 $354 :$376 $383 $399 $442..', $488 $502' $540 $1,341 $1,483' $1,599 $1,644 $1;673 $1,664 $1;757 $1,776 $1,767 $1;763` $1,764 $741 $748 $775 $297 $825 $833 $847 $852' $856 $853 $830 $894 $946 $983 $1,038 $1;069 $1,084 $1;114 $1,147 $1,190 $1,203: $1236' $371 $398 $449 $506 $489' $533 $528 $531 $513 $497' $463:^ $996 $1,046 $1,207 $1,266 $1,292 $1,310 $1,349 $1',495 $1,541 $1;536' $1;275' $1,590 $1,844 $2;154 $2,430 $2;466!. $2,447 $2,452 $2,427' $2,347 $2,186`, $2;.155'.. $686 $604 $695 $801 $797 $722 $822 $918' $1,009 $1'j094 :$1;214. $1,484 $1,550 $1,651 $1,837 $'1,807 $1,8]2 $1,826 $1,912 $2,001, $1.;980 _ $1,7.90` $8,41:4 $8;936 $9;835 $1Q672 $10,793 $10,809 $11,095 $11,505 $11,710 $11;6,16, $;11,267 $5,142 $5,441 $5;779 $6;176 $6;239 $6,329 $6,471 $6,665 $6,814 ' $6;799 $6§23. 434,133 442,625, 449;455 '458;614 464,543, 468;501 470,829 473,521 475,461 476;956. 479;668 (a) Retail sales have been adjusted tii, 2007 dollars based iih'the Tazatile Sales Deflators calculated'by the State Board of Equalization (BOE): (b) Analysis excludes all nor-retail outlets (business and personal services) reporting taxable sales, (cj Excludes Food, Building Materials; Auto, and Service Station categories. (d) Per capita sales calculated based oh State Board of'Equalization reported sales and annual Department of Finance population estimates benchmarked to the decennial Census. Sources: State Board of Equalization; 2000 U.S. Census; State Department of Finance; Bay Area Economics, 2008 74 Appendix C-6: California Taxable,Retail Sales Trends, 1997 to 2007 (Adjusted for Inflation) California Sales in 2007 $000 (a) (b) Apparel Stores General Merchandise$tores Food Stores Eating and Drihking Places Home Furnishings:and Appliances Buildi ng Materials: and; Farm; l mplements .Auto Dealers and Auto Supplies Service Stations' Other'RetaiGSto~es Retail Stores Total California Sales per.Capita in;2007 $ (c) Apparel Stores General Merchandise Stores Food Stores Eating and'Drinking Places Home Furnishings and Appliances Building Materials and Farm Implements Auto Dealers and Auto Supplies Service. Stations Othet Retail Stores Retail Stores Total (b) Population 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 ;2004. 2005 2006 2007 $12{289;592:. $12,706,968 $12,337,931 $13,570,706 $14,159,660 $14,956,350 $16,187,177 $17,804;640 $19,198,983 $19,972,158 $20{855;890 $38,930,895 $42,004;330 $45,814',292 $48,409;654 $49,910,072 $51,691,252 $53,905;842 $56,635,384 $58,264,661 $59,691,512 $59;897;350 $16;972,823 $17,455,065 $18,496,636 $19,408,915 $19,908,166 $20,203,857 $20,695,907 $20,816,646' $21,678;197 $22;021,568 $22461,059 $30;114,227 $32,546,359 $34,948;302 $37,458,301' $38;972,373 $40,596,418 $42;707,771 $45;437,888 $47;620,43.2 $49,583,796 $51,658,575 :$10,267,178' $11,411,754. $12,896,294 $14,358,213 $14;;100,349 $14,907,403 $16,105,674' $17,225;272 .$17;841,,129 $17;508;584 $16,720,852 $18;754,496 $20,974;482 $23,961,220 $26;201,904 '$27;985;893 $29,929;600 $32,730,879 $38,985;973., $40;689;358 $40,098,124 $32,656,324 $40,524',458 $45,930;127 $52,827,0]7 $59;921,922, $64;277,633 $68,038;905: $71502;347 $74;306;213 $75;516,360 $72,090,047 $70,779,978 $20,590,076 $18,794,027 $21;876{691 $26;628,562 $26;043;867 $25,509;706 $29,554,037 $34,396;928. $39;569,986 $43;893„427 $47;084,940 $43,109,705' $46;673,805 $52,052,619' $57;272,036 '$55;535;499 $55;711J5,16' $58,079,012 $62,065;078 $65;206;923 ~ $67,008,050 ~ $64,910,134, $231,553',449' $248,496;918 $275,211;003 $303,230,214 $310;893,732 $321,545;008 ,$3'41,469;645f $367,676;027 ,$385,588,035 `$391,869,27,1 $387;027,109 1997 1998 1999 12000 2001 .2002. '2003' .2004. 2005 2006 2007_ $382- $389 $372; $401' $411 $427' $454' $492 $523 $538 $555. $1,209 $1,286 $1,382 $1,429 $1,450 $1,474 $1;512 $1;565. $1,589 $1,608 $1',595 ' $527 $534 $SSi3 $573' $578 $576 $580. $575 $591 $593 $5 98', $935 $997, $1,055 $1,106 $1,132 $1;158 $1,198. $1;255 $1,298 $1,336 $1,375 $319 $349 $389 $424 $410 $425 $452 $476 $486 $472 $445 $582. $642 $723 $774 $813 $854. $918' $1,077 $1,109 $1';080. $869. $1,258 $1,406; $1,594 $1,769 $1,867 $1;940 $2;006 $2;05$ $2,059 .$]',942 $1,884' $639: $575 $660 $786 $756 .$728 $829 $950 $1,079 $1;183' $1,254 $1,338 $1,429. $1;571 $.1,691 $1,613 $1,,569 $1;,629 $1,715 $1,779 $1`;805. $1;728_; $7,189.. $7,809 $8,304 $8;952 $9,029 $9,,170. $9,578 $10,157 $10,514 $10',558 $10,304, 32,207,869 32,657,877 33;140;2.71 33,873,086, 34,430,970 35;063y959 35,652,700. 36',199;34& 36;675,346 37,11,4,598 37;55.9,440 ~l W (a) RetaiGsales have been adjustedao 2007 dollars based on the Taxable Sales Deflators:calculaJed by the State Board of Equalization (BOE). (ti)`Ariary'sis ezcludes•all non-retail outlets (busihess and personal services) reporting taxable'sales. (c) Percapitasales calculated based on State Board of Equalization reported sales and annual Department of Finance population estimates benchmarked to the decennial Census. Sources: State Board of Equalization; 2000 U:S. Census; State Department of Finance; Bay Area Economics, 2008. ~5 Appendix,D: ,Home Furnishings and Appliances Sales. Detail Sales in 2007 $000 (a), (b) Furniture~ahd"'Home Furnishings Electronics and Appliances Home Furnishings and Appliances Total Sales'Per Capita in;2007 $ (a) (b) Furniture and Home Furnishings Electronics and Appliances Home F'uirnishirgs and Appliances Total Petaluma'• 'Novato 'Rohnert Park Sonoma County $9;854; $25,293 $27;41'5 $187;367 $17,053. $7,238- $22,263. $210,995 $26,907 , $32,530' $49,678 $398;362 Petaluma :Novato Rohnerf-Park Sonoma Coun $177 $519 $650 $400 $306 $148 $528 $450 $483 $66T $1';177 $850 Population, 2002 55,730 48,760' 42198 468,501 (a) Retail sales have~beencadjusted to2007 dollars based on the Taxable Sales Deflators calculated by the State Board of Equalization',(BOE). (b) -This table relies on data from (he:2002 Cerisus'of Retail Trade ~athe~ than;the CA State Board of Equalization: Numbers may,not~.exactly match state taxable sales datadue to useof different source data, different classifcation of individual outlets, and inclusion ofnon=taxable sales in the data presehted here. ~ , (c) Data not available due o disclosure rules. Sources: 2002 Census bf'Retail Trade; State Board'of Equalization;- Bay Area Economics; 2008 r,' 76 _$~. V~ Appendix E: Estimate of'i2etail Sales in Unincorporated Portion of Trade.Area: From 2002 Economic Census Sonoma County Sales Number of Sales°,per Employment NAICS Category ($1,000) 'Employees Employee Distribution A B C D =A'1,400 ! C 44T Motor vehicle 8 parts.dealers .$1,332,598. 3,546 $375;803 14% 442 Furniture & home furnishings stores $178;448 996' $1;79;165 4% 443 Electronics&appliancestores, $200,952 875 $229;659 3% - 444 Bldng mtrial &grdn equip&~supplies $610;256 2,772 $220,1.50 11% 445 Food & beverage stores $1,180,440 5;905 $199,905, 23% 446 Health & personal care stogies $327,631 2;173 $150;774 8% 447 Gasoline stations $299,133 861 $347,425 3% 448 Clothing 8 clothing accessories stores. $245;567 2,027 $121,148 8% 451 Sporting gdods, hobby 'book;;& music stores $169;726 1,481 $114,602 6% 452 General merchandise stores $235,573 2,944 $249;855' 11% 453. Miscellaneous store retailers $37,8,224 1,402 $127,121 5% 454. Nonstore retailers $273,400 1,124 $243,238 4% TotaLRetail$ector $5,731,948 26;106 $21;9,564 100% 722 Fgod services and drinking establishments $537;967 12,865 $41,816 . TOTAL $6,269,915 65,077 $96,346 Unincoraorated Sonoma County Sales Number.df 'Sales pen' Employment NAICS Category ($1,000). Employees Employee Distribution E F G H =E*1,OOO l F . 441 Motor vehicle & parts dealers 843,930 300 $279,'67 8% 442 Furniture & home fumishingsatores S' "^ `> ~ =i 1% 443 Electronics& appliance stores ~1 ~ i'~~~~ 51 St ~ . ,8r 1% 444 Bldng' mtrial 8 grdn equip`8 supplies _ ~ 52,875 - _ _ v ~~ 243 _ 20% 445 Food 8 beverage stores ~ =757.046 ~ :EGG ~ .7'~ 380. 39°l0 446 Health&personal:care~stores ~9~3' '~~~ 5~',~_--~ 4% 447 Gasolineatations~ :.-- . ~~~ '~o ~ 8~9 ~ 4% 448 ClothingA& clothing accessories'store"s 3s 340 <.1 3 ~ ~.aEi 8% 451 Sporting goods, Bobby; book, 8~music~stores ~1a „~~p; iso ,_ 4% 452. General merchandis_e;stores ~ ~ i 7 :5 8 5 I 1 'G~ 0%. `~ 453 Miscellaneousstoreretailers ~ ~~ 1 =140,586 7% 454. Nonstore retailers ~ ~ 31 ~ 5,5 ~ 5u '2'08 530 ~~ 4% ~1 3,873 -178,987. 100% 722. Food services and drinking establishmehts ~ ' `~-4:' 1,840 541,816 TOTAL $7!0,243 5713 w,134;812 Cells in gray.represent estimates, based on employment class size,stated i ri Ecohomic Census . Sales peremp loyee, where estimated, is derived by taking the sales per employee;for each category for the County and adj usting this numberand the employmeriCnumber bya factor so thaf~the total gales for,all retail (excluding NAICS 722;'which is'classjfed with services,in'the EconomicsCensus) is equal to tfie,tdtal;stateii inthe;Census of RetaitTrad e:for,unincorporated "Sonoma County. This also has the effect,of making She+employment numbers rqughlyequivalent to the'totalatated. NAICS 722 empldymentis estimated,by_taking the published numbers'fo~ all components of-the s_ actor; and adding the low end of the estimate for the one cbmpononet IJAICS sector where only an employmeriYrarige'is{given. continued on next page E-~ Appendix E: Estimate of Retail Sales in Unincorporated Portion of Trade Area Unincoraorated Sonoma County; by State Bbard df Equalizatioh Categories Estimated Taxable ;Sales Number.."of Sales ($1,000) Employees {$1;000) J K grouped from-E grouped from F adjusted from'.I Taxable Inflated Sales per to Employee 2007 $ L M =K`1,000 / J =L`inflator Apparel stores $33,346 321 $33,346. $703,861 $110,725 General merchandise sto_ res $1,745 8 $1,745 $214,202 $228,358 Food: stores $257;045 1,500 $77,.114 $51,414 $54;812 Home furnishings and appliances $17,878 102 ' $17,878 $175,244 $186,825 Building materials '$152,875 783 $552;875 $195,243 $208,146 Motor Vehicles and Parts $83,930 300 $83;930 $279,767 $298,256 Service stations $44,558 150 $44;558 $297,849 $317,534 Other retail $101,924 710 $901,924 $143,596 $153,086 Total Retail Sector $693,301. 3,873:. $SA3;369 $132,534 $141,293 Eating and drinking places $76;942 1,840 $76;942 $41,816 $44;580 Total all SBE retail categories ~ $770,243 5,713 $590;311 $103,319 $110,147 Inflator, 2002-2007 (BOE Taxable Sales Deflators) 1.066087 Estimated Unincoraorated Trade Area Employment Estimated Taxable Rounded Distribution Employment Sales (in $1,000) N O P Q from H =M`O =P/1,000 Apparel stores 8% 43 .$4',790,726 $4,791 General merchandise stores 0% 1 $250,637 $251 Food stores 39% 202 $T5;078;793 $11,079 Home furnishings and appliances 3% 14 $2,568,542. $2,569 Building:materials 20% 706 $21,963,337 $21,963 Motor Vehicles and Parts 8% 40 $12,058,1p6 $12,058 Service. stations 4% 20 $6;401.,619 $6,402 Other retail 18% 96 x$14;643,308 $14,643 Total retail sector employment, 2000 Census 522 $73;755,068 $73,755 Eating and drinking places 409 $18;233,157 $18,233 Total all SBE retail categories 931 $91;988,225 $91,988 Total unincorporated retail sector employment from 2000 Census Transportation Planning Package:. Trade Area unincorporated distribution by category assumed;to follow distribution for entire unincorporated Sonoma County. Based on data frdm CA State Employment Development Department, overall retail employmentin Sonoma County has been relatively unchanged since 2000. This trend is applied to the uhincorporated area', witfi the assumption that employment has remained=unchanged since 2000. Taxable sales for food-stores has been calcuVated based on the assumption t 30°l0 of total`food.store sales are taxable. While the drug store component of geheral merchandise is generally also adjusted, this sector'. is of insigificant site here and is not adjusted. Eating:and drinking place,employment in unincorporatedarea based on ratio ofunihcorporated area to,tbtal.unincorporated county applied to 1,840 food service workers as shown. above for unincorporated county.for majbr sectorcdm6ining;arts,~eriteitaihment; recreatibn, accdmmodation and food services. Employmeritnumbers for Economic Census and 2000 Census are generally5imilar where comparisons are possible. Arts: enteitainm`ent recreatidn. accommodatioh and food'services, from Census Transportation Planning Package Workers`.n:unincorporatedTradeArea' 1,141 22°l0 Workers n;unincorporated County 5,133 .100% Foodaervices:and,drinkihd establishments 1Norkersln;uriincorporated County 1',840 from Economic Census, above times,proportion for majorsector 22% Estimated workers in unincorporated Trade Area 409 Sources: BAE2008, based on data;from 2000'Cehsus Transportation Planning Package„ 2002 Economic Census, CA Employment Development Department, and CA State.Board of Equalization. 7g ~' Appendix F: Employment bylhdustry, 2007 Sonoma County Industry Group Number P-ercerit Farm 6;000' `3:1 Natural Resources & Mining 200 0.1 Construction ~ 14,400 7.3% .Manufacturing 22,300 11.4% WholesaleTrade 7,700 3.9% Retail Trade. 24,100 12.3% Transportation, Warehousing,& Utilities 4,500 2;3% Information 3,000 1.5% Financial Activities 9;300 4.7% Professiona~8 Business Services 23,000 11.7% .Educational 8 Health Services 23,600 12.0% Leisure & Hospitality 20,800 10.6% Other Services 6,400 3.3% Government 31,000 15.8% Total, All Industries 196,400 100:0% California 'NunSber Percent 386;400 2.5% 25,900. 0.2% 892,300 5.7% 1,463;200 9.4% 716,900 4.6% 1,688,800 10.9% 505,200 3.2% 472;800 3.0% 906,600 5.8% 2,263,300 14.6% 1,664,300 10.7% 1; 553,100 10.0% 513600 3.3% 2,497,400 16.1 ;15;549;600 100.0% Notes: Annual average wage ahd salary employment. Workers by place of work, hot by~place of residence. March 2007 Benchmark. Data may not sum due to independent rounding Source: California Employment Development Department 79 -8 Appendix;G: Part vs: Full Time Employment by Key Sectors Number otWorkers ParE Time Full -Time Total IndustryGroup Number °I° of Total Number- % of Total Departmeht'Sto~e 105,608 40.8% 153,489 59:2% 259;097 Home Electronics 24,227 16.3% 124,194 83.7% 148,421 Apparel 56,941 42.8% 75,956 57:2% 132,897 Sporting Goods 27;532 46.6% 31;585 53:4% 59,117 Furniture/Home Furnishings 18,858 24.2% 58,980 75:8% 77,838 Restaurant 391,964 43.2% 514,706' 56:8% 906,670 Specialty Food 19,352 31..3% 42-,475 68.7% 61;827 Other Retail _107;694 39.5°!0 129,554 62;5% 287,248 Retail Types noon Project 246;072,. 25:7%. 711.;230 74:3% 957,302 Office 495,643 20.1% 1,966,666 79;9% 2,462;309 Source: 2000 U.S. Census Rublic Use Microdafa Sample (PUMS); BAE, 2009. Appendix H: Property Value Estimates Component Value/Cost Land: Assessed-Value by"Parcel APN 007-241-002 $12,677,444 APN 007-473-040 $2,257;952 APN 007-251=001 $5,006,248 APN 007-031-001. $3,871.,858 Total Assessed Land Value $23,813,502 Site. Improvements $15,144,020 Building Improvements $56,521,334 Total Value lmprovemerits $71,665,354 Totat Assessed Value $95,478,856 Uses cost method for.assuming value of improvements. Sources: City of Petaluma;`Sonoma County Assessor'sAffice; Regency CehEers; BAE, 2009.. 80 E~BR ATTACH IVI E NT F ~, I'etal~aa Neighborhood 1~ssociation 40 Fourth Street Petaluma, CA 94952 December 6th, 2009 To: Project Planner /Petaluma Planning Commission Re: Comments on the East Washington Place Environmental Impact Report Dear Derek, Thanks again for yow time last week. I attempted to email you the enclosed documents but, apparently the files were too large (especially the maps) to send through an email so, I decided to just give you hazd copies at this time. We would appreciate it if you can still include these documents in with the administrative record for the EWP project so that the planning commission can have access to these written comments at tomorrow's meeting. Thank you for your concideration. Sincerely, Paul Francis Petaluma Neighborhood Association Petaluma Resident ,' _.- .. DEC ~~ '~ 2Ur19 Y.~~ -tom ~S `~~ 0 ~~ Petaluma, Neighborhood Association 40 Fourth Street Petaluma CA, 94952 November 3rd, 2009 To: Petaluma Planning Commission Re: Comments on the East Washington Place Environmental Impact Report Submit to administrative record: East Washington Place/EIR Dear Petaluma Planning Commissioners, At this time, please accept the following comments with my points of concern regarding the EWP/EIR and the proposed development at the Kenilworth site. The EWP/EIlZ makes reference to Petaluma's General Plan in several sections. Therefore, it is perfectlylegitimate to bring into question the proposed project's validity under the scope of General Plan compliance. Because sections of the EIR's analysis hinges on referencing the GP', .particularly in sections 4.1 Aesthetics and 4.9 Land Use, so too should your perspective on whether or not the study adequately addresses these given points. Simply put, if the preparers of the report are using references from our General Plan to substantiate various elements of the project's design and mitigated impacts then logically, you should also take this stance in:determining if indeed their impact analysis and compliance achieved what it set out to do. East Washington Place EIR analysis/General. Plan Compliance: The following excerpts from our General Plan clearly stipulate what the objectives will be, not only for retail .development at the Kenilworth site but, also the surrounding areas and the East Washington corridor. It provides a vision for how retail development should be integrated along the Washington Street corridor, referring to. East Washington Street as "a entry gateway into Petaluma, and to create distinctive features at this point." (Continued) DEC '~ 7 2009 (@ ggg{~1~, l~ ~ ~~ ~ E. I'-.,I: ti:~`~+4f'di! t: is ~~:e c~3 ~~:i `~~_.~ t The EWP/EIIt fails to address the following land use objectives of our General Plan: Chapter 1 of the General Plan reads as follows: GOAL 1-G-1: Land Use (page 1-14) Maintain a balanced land use program that meets the long-term residential, employment, retail, institutional, education, recreation, and open space needs of the community. Comment: Because there is no specific list of retail tenants aside from the possible anchor tenant, the project's EIR does not comply with this GP objective to "meet the long term retail needs of our community': The EIR is fictitious and inconclusive in this area. A. Develop incentives in the bevelopment Code to encourage lot consolidation to enable efficient multi-story buildings, and relocation of driveways to side streets. Comment: The project proposal makes no effort to achieve this objective. By proposing mostly inefficient large single story structures on a subdivided lot, it misses the point entirely. 1-P-6 Encourage mixed-userdevelopment, which include opportunities for increased transit access. Comment: The projectsite is situated just five blocks from our new transit plaza and the Petaluma SMART rail station. Yet, there is no effort to implement Transit Oriented Design (TOD) elements into the site plan Also see my TAC comments. 1-P-7 Encourage flexibility in building form and in the nature of activities to allow for innovation and the. ability to change over. time. Comment: The proposed "building form"solely meets the minimum standards of the developer and is essentially amono- use/mono form design. The project EIR does not address the 'flexibility of building form"therefore does not adequately provide alternatives for future innovation of the buildings. (Continued) ~-~ 1-P-27 Encourage innovative site and building design to address parking; solutions such as shared, structured, and/or underground facilities. Comment: The project proposal and the EIR both fail to address this objective in our GP. The project layout consists of a large 16. Sacre patch of asphaltas the only option for providing.parking at the site. The EIR does not adequately address this as a negative impact, provides no alternatives to meet~the GP objective. The 1JWP/EIR fails to address the following. Community Design, Character, and sustainable building objectives of our General Plan: Chapter 2 of the General'Plan reads as follows: Strong entries are another important. element of community design, as their chazacter creates the image Petaluma presents upon arrival. Comment: The term "strong entries" is certainly open to interpretation. But, I think we can all agree that the backside of a large bunker style structure would do nothing to achieve this particular GP objective and would not enhance the~character of Petaluma 2-P-5 Strengthen the visual and aesthetic character of major arterial comdors. 2-P-22 Encourage development with active ground level uses, plazas and open spaces, while allowing residential and commercial uses atupper floors: 2-P-23 Facilitate development patterns that provide an urban edge along East Washington Street, providing visual continuity and cohesiveness, and increased safety. (Continued) °~, 2-P-23(D) Ensure'that.development at the old Kenilworth Jr. -High school ~sitetand any' future redevelopment~:of'the Fargrounds.property maintains a public, pedestrian, and active face along East Washington Street;., and provides civic and ceremonial spaces with links to the Library and other, uses. Comment: Sections 2-P-S, 2-P-22, 2-P-23, 2-P-23(D) of our GP.provides us with a frame--voYk of how development hould proceed at the Kenilworth sife and the surrounding area. The EWP/EIR also quotes these policies,from our GP. Why then, does the project proposal seemingly.ignore these policies? GPhy does the project's EIR reference these policies and yet it makes no attempt to dddressthese critical viewpoints, nor the negative impacts relevant to a project design that is non-compliant? )Framework for Futureitetail Development: Every city has its own topography and ambiance and there arerules of thumb to keep in mind when reviving neighborhoods and approving projects. here in Petaluma. >Etein in the automobile: For SO years we completely obsessed with making room for cars. We need to show respect for people who are.moving about on foot or by bicycle. Accentuate the positive: Celebrate the things that give our~city its special characteristics- views of hills. or water, historic buildings. If it's nice for the locals then visitors will love to come here also. Emphasize the out-of:d'oors: We do almostall of our, work indoors; we need to move in our leisure time. People want to walk, run, bicycle- or sit and enjoy the setting, have a cappuccino. Design for all. ages: Various groups in the population Have various needs. For instance, .fold' active playgrounds into.a site plan and position them where parents can relax with a glass. of wine while children let offsteam. Excerpted from "Life Between Buildings" by Jan Gehl {Continued) . _,... ~:; ~' As :the city of Petaluma continues to experience its growing pains I fiope that you in your roll as planning commissioners will uphold the comrriunity standards stipulated in our General Plan. l am optimistic that you will always .have the best interests of the community in mind when you make decisions regarding .planning. The project developer's concerns should take a back seat to the concerns expressed by people who have made Petaluma their home.. After all, without people to occupy the spaces and buildings there is very little=point to development is there? As a representative of the Petaluma Neighborhood Association and a resident, it is my obligation to continue tq cast;a critical. eye over Regency Center's proposal. As a community organization we wily. continue to oppose the plan until a redesign of the site meets. the needs and objectives of our community. Sincerely, Paul Francis Petaluma Neighborhood Association Petaluma Resident Note: Please see addition documentation attached: Including past EIR comments with alternative site plan maps and my comments to the Petaluma TransitAdvisory Committee. i~ -~ SE o ~ ®C[S l1~ND USE PLANNING m ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS September 14, 2009 Comments upon the East Washington Draft EIR Submitted on behalf of the OWL Foundation Summary The DE1R has .some very profound problems in terms of both CEQA:and' Plannmg/Zoning law compliance. Many of the problems are correctable, but will require ftu-ther analysis. There are various procedural flaws, such as.how certain Sections of the DEIR limit or constrain the analysis for that issue. There are some significant data flaws that will change the scope of impacts and the adequacy of mitigations. Parts that are required by CEQA to be assessed are omitted. The Project description itself is inconsistent, and there are inconsistencies in assumptions between Sections of the DEIR. Some general comments: The impact analysis is incomplete-relative to aesthetics, air quality, water resources, transportation, public services, utilities, and land use. The DEIR uses an inconsistent def nition of the cumulative buildout scenario, which compromises the ability to accurately identify the cumulative impacts,. as well as provide an objective comparison of alternatives. The DEIR does not provide substantial evidence to support a number of its assumptions and conclusions, including citing.documents not included in the DEIR, incomplete.citations to City documents, and relying on documents that are now discredited, superseded or that are too old to provide accurate information. The DEIR relies on documents that are not in the public record, which disqualifies them from use under CEQA; the very limited exceptions. are not applicable in this case. The DEIR fails to provide any project level impact analysis in several categories, instead simply offering up a cumulative analysis only. The DEIR relies. on improper project segmentation, by severing the analysis from key surrounding uses and actions,, such as installation of a new groundwater well, limiting pedestrian and vehicle flow from the project to only the Project site (excluding the Library and park-and- ride facility as requiredby the General Plan), the relocation of Little League facilities, etc. (7071 24Q-1302 '~ 5C~T5TFG~r !'S1~IVIT~R.NFT 1430 HIGH SCHOOL ROAD ®SEBASTOPOL, . CA 954 72 QEC ~ ~ 2009 ,~I ~-~ ~ The DEIR has inconsistent assumptions regarding traffic flow between the Transportation section and the Population/HousingBlight section, as-well as the timing of infrastructure improvements. This then compromises the conclusions of the Air Quality analysis. The EIR uses a changing and incorrect baseline for the Project Setting. CEQA requires the setting to be based upon the circumstances at the time of release of the Notice of Preparation for the EIR In several cases, the EIR relies on older information. The DEIR provides an inconsistent:and incomplete analysis of General Plan consistency relative to land use, public services, transportation, and other General Plan Elements. Project Description and Setting Comment 1) The importance of the project description is that it provides the starting point for the impact analysis in each section. An incomplete or inconsistent project description means the scope of potential impacts remains unknown. In this case, the DEIR excludes any discussion of the proposed groundwater well to be offered to the City, but indicates it is assumed in the Urban Water Management Plan,(UWNIP) of Petaluma. Since the UWMP was not subject to any CEQA review (they are exempted under the law), the UWMI' could not have provided any analysis of CEQA issues relative to such a well, and such studies need to be incorporated in this project. Comment 2) The DEIR also excludes the.relationship and interaction of the Project with the Library and-the park-and-ride facility (which analysis is required under the General Plan for any project proposed on the Kenilworth site). Since the General Plan creates'by policy an interdependency among these public and private uses, that analysis has to occur in "this EIR. For the same reason, the Project setting needs to be expanded to include those areas that are linked by City policy to the Kenilworth site. Comment 3) The DEIR also excludes any discussion of the relocation of the Little League and Pop Warner uses that are still occurring. While acknowledging the relocation is a result of the Project, the DEIR simply notes that a separate Mitigated Negative Declaration (N1rTD) was done several years ago. Since that MND was done by the District, it would not assess impacts and . consistency with the Petaluma General Plan, traffic and noise impacts relative to City standards, etc. Comment 4) Lastly, the DEIR acknowledges that the size of the Project could grow if Cal-Trans requires a smaller right-of-way from the Kenilworth site. The DEIR then makes a general claim that this difference is generally addressed in each Chapter, which is not the case. East V/nstiington DEIR 20090909 ~~ Aesthetics Comment 5) The DEIR mostly relies upon consistency with General .Plan policies as a basis for assessing impacts, but then omits a number of key policies contained within the General Plan. The omitted policies not only relate to the Project, but also demonstrate the Project does not comply with all relevant General Plari policies. In one case, the DEIR quotes policies 2-P-23 (A) and (D), but then omits Policies 2-P-23-(B), (C), (E), and (F), which are also applicable to the East Washington Corridor. The omission of Policy 2-P-23 (B) is particularly significant, since it includes "Require building location and height to present a storefront along the corridor" and "Parking lots at the rear of buildings, accessible from side streets where feasible". The use of the word "feasible" qualifies the issue of access from side streets; not the remainder of the Policy. Yet the DEIR Project Description notes on page 3-9 that the mixed use building on the northwest corner of the Project is oriented to the interior parking area, not East Washington. In addition, the primary block of retail structures are cleazly located behind the large continuous parking lot that fronts on Kenilworth Drive, contrary to the General Plan policy. Comment 6) While a Local Agency, such as the City of Petaluma, has some latitude in interpreting and applying its own General Plan policies, there are some basic standards.and tests that must be met. The common statement that a Project is "generally" consistent with a General only applies when the policies subject to interpretation~or qualified by the use of words such as "where feasible", "generally", "encourage", etc. But if a policy is applicable to a particular project, specific in its wording, and mandatory in nature, then there is no ground for latitude by the Local Agency in addressing consistency. In:addition, a Project that is inconsistent with a single General Plan policy of that sort (one that is mandatory and applicable) is considered.inconsistent with the General Plan. Since Project approvals must be consistent with the General Plan, the East Washington project cannot be approved until the Project design is brought into consistency with that General Plan Policy. The failure to address applicable policies is a violation of CEQA. Transportation This section has a large number of problems, and the degree of the significant rewrite that is needed may compel recirculation of the DEIR. Some ofthe more damaging problems are: Comment 7) The discussion of traffic stacking omits a key intersection (LindleylLalceville) that the traffic study later shows will have terrible .traffic delays., That being the case, and given Lindley/Lakeville is immediately connected to 1'01 traffic, it is essential to determine if the East Washington DEIIt 20090909 ~~ existing travel lanes have enough stacking distance on the unsignalized approach to hold all the traffic that will back up. The EIR dismissed the significance of the impacts on the minor approaches on Lindley as not creating a potentially significant impact. But the DE]R did not address delays in left turn movements from Lakeville onto Lindley. Comment 8) The DEIR consultant uses a very peculiar standard for determining if a stop sign controlled. intersection will have traffic-problems: Their position is that LOS F on the secondary approach (meaning traffic on Lindley that wants to turn onto Lakeville) is not a significant impact if it doesn't trigger a traffic signal. Which,is circular logic. If the intersection meets signal warrents, then you would just signalize and mitigate the problem. To turn around and then say its not an impact if you don't trigger a traffic signal has nothing to do with the traffic flow impacts. Comment 9) The project-level analysis assumes the construction of a number of street improvements in the immediate future. There is no clear indication that the City has the capacity to pay for or build those projects in the time frame assumed by the DEIR. That being the case, the actual impacts will be worse than predicted by removing those assumed improvements from the near-term traffic analysis. Comment 10) The DEIR ignores all project level significant unmitigated impacts-that were studied in the General Plan E]R, saying its already been studied by the General Plan EIR and Override Findings were already made for those intersections. Which ignores the simple and clearly stated limiting language in the .General ]?lan EIR that the document only looks at'the impacts upon buildout: This EIR is a program EIIt that examines the potential effects resulting from implementing designated land'uses and policies in the proposed General Plan. The impact assessment evaluates. the General Plan as a whole and identifies the broad, regional effects that may occur with its implementation. As a programmatic document, this EIR does not assess project-specificimpacts. Any future development project made possible by the General Plan willbe subject to individual, site-specific environmental review, as required by State law.(General Plan Update 2025 Draft EIR Executive Summary). Consistent with that, the Resolution approving the General Plan notes on page 4 that, (1)t is intended that future projects which are consistent with the General-Plan 2025 are expected to rely on the General Plan 2025 EIR and the findings contained herein to satisfy certain CEQA requirements.for evaluation of environmental effects of future projects to the extent those effects have been studied in the General Plan 2025 EIR. ~~c wnshington nEUt zoo9o9ov 1 Comment 11) . The General. Plane EIR cannot predict what order will occur of road` improvements and specific projects. The General Plan EIR also cannot predict how private and public decisions about the design of Projects may alter the assumptions and coarse "resolution" of the conclusions. Since the East Washington Project will be in place long before any significant work is done on completing the east/wesf connectors, the actual near-term impacts may be much worse than determined in the General Plan EIR. Which means they have. to be studied and mitigated in the short-term. Comment 12) The language that creates the CEQA "bridge" for relying upon the General Plan 2025 EIR for project-level impacts also limits that to projects consistent with the General Plan. As already noted, the consistency of the Project:with the General Plan has yet to be properly determined, with the site design itself presenting a General Plan conflict, which precludes relying at all upon the General Plan 2025 EIR. Comment 13) The DEIR improperly relies upon the General Plan 2025 Program EIR (PEIR) when noting that the cumulative traffic impacts will result in significant unmitigated impacts and therefore no further discussion or mitigation assessment is required. Tiering behind a Program EIR is contingent upon demonstrating "no new effects could occur or no new mitigation measures would be required".(Guidelines §:15.168-c). The DEIR data actually demonstrates that the PM peak hour traffic will be worse at some intersections than thatpredicted by the PEIIL In addition, the PEIR made no traffic assumptions or findings relative to weekend traffic, which the DEIR again identifies as resulting in potentially significant impacts. Comment 14) There is no discussion of any near-term impacts upon police and fire response time, which is required under the General Plan,policies. Comment 15) There is no discussion of compliance with General Plan multi-modal transportation policies. There is also no discussion of the significance and issues connected to the planned SMART train depot at the old Petaluma site, which will not have its own park-and-ride lot. This provides an opportunity to increase utilization of the existing Park n Ride by the Library to encourage use of the Petaluma Depot station. Comment 16) The traffic study assumes that more traffic from this Project will disperse to the same degree as current traffic, meaning similar to riow but more so. This is directly in conflict with the Project Market Analysis which predicts a significant part of the center activity will be redirection of .existing flows from shoppers who presently are part of the "retail leakage" that leaves Petaluma. That traffic will be disproportionately be redirected to this site, contrary to the traffic model. East Washington DBIR 20090909 -~- ~_d Comment 17) The DEIR assumption of GP .buildout includes 4 different crossings of 101 that are not in place nor programmed with Regency or Deer Creek. The result is to skew traffic impacts of cross- town traffic and sales tax recapture concentrated into a few limited entry points. Put another way, the claimed recapture, and traffic in general, will not have the benefit of the multiple east- west crossings, so there will be a_greater concentration on the crossings that do exist. This is true even with conventional traffic circulation. If you then factor in the alteration and redirection resulting from capturing shoppers who have been going elsewhere, and the relative short-term impacts may be much greater than the_long-term impacts. Comment 18) The DEIR makes reference to the use of fees to mitigate traffic impacts, and that-the Petaluma fee ordinance, and the General Plan EIR, both say the payment of fees is acceptable mitigation. This is wrong in several respects: The fees in question only mitigate all impacts if ALL funding sources are identified and committed. The 2009 Fee study prepared for Petaluma shows that various City transit improvements have been identified, but not funded and are not reflected in the fees: So any impact associated with those bus/bike/raiUferry issues is not funded and is not mitigated by paying the City traffic mitigation fee. In,addition, the fee study notes that the Sonoma County Transportation Authority has its own road-and transit projects that. are part of the overall system, and which are funded by a separate fee, which is not noted by the DEIR and not funded. Utilities The Utilities Chapter is more limited in scope. The water supply portion does contain a number of problems. In general, the section simply states that the Sonoma County Water Agency does has a long term plan to deliver water supplies consistent with the next,round of expansion (i.e., buildout as per General P1an2025), but that a separate EIR is in preparation for that project. It then states that the City General Plan assumed no increase in SCWA water available to Petaluma, with the Regency EIR relying heavily upon the 2005 Urban Water Management Plan. Comment 19) The iJVVMP is not subject to CEQA review by law, which means that the underlying- assumptions and choices are subject to CEQA review at the time speck projects rely upon the UWMP. This is not done here, with the DEIR simply relying upon the UWMP as a final source and reference not subject to question. Even if the UWMP had undergone its own CEQA review, this DEIR would have to update those conclusions in the context of changed circumstances sine 2005. Some of these are addressed in greater detail below. Comment 20) The DEIR cites the UWMP as saying that City demand will exceed supply in a multiple dry-year scenario in the year 2010. But the correct and consistent reference year should be the predicted East Wasliington DEIIt 20090909 { ~~~ date for full occupancy„ since that is when the full impact of the Project water demand will occur. There is,no discussion of how large that supply gap will be. Comment 21) Using the 2010 year to assess the available water for the Project also creates an internal inconsistency within'the DEIR. In other sections of the DEIR; the assumed baseline for the purpose of assessing, impacts is the first year of full occupancy. In,contrast, .the baseline for the traffic analysis relies upon traffic data for 2007 and early 2008... CEQA requires the determination of a standard. baseline:for assessing Project and Cumulative impacts. The DEIR needs to be modified to rely upon a standard baseline for al1DEIR sections. Comment 22) The weather cycles of the last, 5. to IO` years have seen multiple dry year patterns occur. The DEIR relies upon the assumptions ofthe City 2005 UWMP, which relies upon still older data The DEIR needs to discussand' confirm that the City IJVUIvIP is applying the correct 3-year window for identifying the multiple dry year shortfall and impacts. ,Relying; upon on outdated assumption of the magnitade of the multiple dry year period will.underestimate the water supply shortfall. Comment 23) The DEIR cites the CountyUWIVIP as predicting the SCWA water supply will be adequate through the year 2030, except.--for single dry years beginning'in.2030. There is no discussion of when the County UWMP predicts that there will be a multiple dry yearshortfalls. This. is an example of how the information analysis can break down by assembling pieces of data.from multipledocuments that may have been prepared at differenttimes,wtth different assumptions of supply and demand and weather scenarios. This DEIR picks,data here and there, but never reconciles the data to generate a complete picture. Comment.24) T The DEIR states the City adopted aRecycled Water Plan, Water System.IVIaster Plan, and Groundwater Master Plan after "adoption of the General Plan". This is clearly wrong, since the General Plan Update was not completed until mid 2008. The only source offered by the DEIR is to the June 2006 Water`Demand and,Supply Analysis~Report; which obviously predated adoption of the 2025 General Plan. Moreover, there is no evidence that the. Recycled Water Plan, Water System Master Plan, and Groundwater Master Plan were ever subjected to CEQA review, since no such documents were;referred to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to'relevant State Agencies for review. The result is thatthe entire water supply analysis for the Regency pEIR relies on series of prior studies, many of which predate the curreutwater supply problems, .which. rely on outdated. . information ~ and which themselves were never subject to CEQA review. 9 East Washington DEIR 20040904 ~~4~ Comment 25) This Project DEIR finally,addresses the potential Project-.impacts relative to "insufficient water supplies available. to serve the.project from existing and identified entitlements and resources". The Project DEIR states the current site has a an annual water demand of 6.8 million gallons per year (mgy), and the proposed Project will increase the demand by another 6.26 mgy. Since the General Plan had predicted approximately that demand for the site, the Project DEIR concludes there will be no potentially significant impact since the "proposed project would not exceed the water supply planned for the site under the City's General Plan." The General Plan did not address, nor does this DEIR, address reliability of water supplies in various dry or drought scenarios, instead relying on average numbers. The fact that the City may be close to a shortfall in even an:average year is shown ,by the General Plan projection that the City faced a water supply shortfall as soon as 20l 1. This has now been partially offset by implementation of water conservation measures and a development slowdown combined. But assuming resumption of some level of development, there is no evidence offered that the shortfall would still occur, but simply at a later date. Comment 26) Given the confusing nature of the water supply reliability data, and the lack of discussion of the water supply reliability in a less than normal rainfall"year, the oblique reference to the proposed on-site well becomes even more important. The DEIR explains excluding the well from any discussion by saying it is assumed in the City UWMP. That explains nothing, ignores the fact that the iTWMP was not subject to CEQA review and the offer to provide the City with a new well is a part of the Project, regardless of whether there is no specified timetable. Public Services Comment 27) This Section of the DEIR only provides a few thresholds of significance that are"identified, and only one relative to police services. That one issue that is addressed is whether the Project will trigger a need for new police facilities or services. What is not considered is whether there will be an impact upon police response times in the near-term, prior. to the assumed street improvements and overcrossings. Comment 28) The General Plan specifically says in Policy 7-P-36 thatthe City shall maintain "minimum average response times", but the Public Services portion of the:DEIR does not address this. Comment 29) To further confuse matters; the DEIR Transportation Section includes the following Threshold of Significance: "Cause a substantial decrease in travel speeds on primary emergency response routes such that emergency vehicles would be significantly delayed" In the confusing and East Washington DEIR 20090909 ~-d'~ overlapping discussion that follows in the Transportation. Section, the DEIR fails to ever discuss and analyze police response times. Comment 30) The failure to address a specific threshold issue after it is identified is a significant omission. It is even.more important;in light ofthe significant difference.in infrastructure that is assumed for the immediate future. Many of the major improvements are onlyincluded in the cumulative analysis. That raises the issue as to whether the combined increase in traffic in the near term, combined with the assumed delay in completing the necessary infrastructure to serve that traffic volume, will result in major traffic bottle necks that will impact police response times. The DEIR needs to assess emergency service response times for the baseline condition and for the near- term, assuming the absence of various transportation improvements including the multiple east- west crossings envisioned in the PEIR. Land Use Comment 31) The Land Use section of the DEIR does assess General Plan consistency as required, but only addresses three land use policies as relevant (Policies 1-P-2, 1-P-6, and 1-P-12) The second and third policies address mixed use objectives, including specific to the East Washington corridor. Comment 32) The DEIR then discusses that the failure to include a residential component within the Project is "not entirely" consistent with Policy 1-P-12, but dismisses it as a significant impact because it does not result in a significant physical impact nor conflict with General Plan policies that help mitigate a significant environmental impact. With that statement, the DEIR misses one of the key underlying objectives behind including residential uses in mixed use projects, which is to reduce both vehicle trips and land that must be dedicated to parking. It is commonly accepted that combining residential with commercial can allow-for a reduction to the land area assigned to parking, since the parking demand periods don't overlap; the spaces become duel use. Comment 33) Even more importantly, this particular project site is well situated to take advantage of the multiple public transit options now and in the future, including the current park-and-ride facility and the planned SMART station at the old Downtown depot. Since the General Plan does cite these policies as mitigations or responses to predicted traffic congestion, the failure to provide residential mixed use does actually conflict with mitigations identified in the General Plan EIR to help reduce car traffic and ifs impacts. Comment 34) The recent grant application of the City to support the SMART depot identifies a radius around the Depot site for which a master planning effort will occur to support land and transportation Enst Washington DEIR 20090909 'B' ' W./ planning centered. on that=SMART'station. The western edge.of the.Easf Washington site falls within that planning radius, yet the DEIR makes no mention ofcoordinationtyith the Depot nor does the Project Plan itself address any continuity of activity along the corridor. Economic impacts/bliglit Comment 35) The DEIR analysis opens by citing Bakersfield Appellate Court decision that blighting impacts need to be assessed in the context~of shopping centers, shopping nodes,.. and individual stores. But the ETR and its Technical. Appendixi.only address economic impacts in the context of nodes, not individual stores. Since the DETR has not done any assessment of economic impacts on downtown merchants, the: question ofpossilile blighting impacts in Downtown is not answered and may represent a potentially significant`impact. Comment 36) The DEIR~makes an unsupported assumption that the three major centers under review (East Washington, Deer Creek; and'Ri~er&ont) centers will lie targeting different market shares, and therefore not.compete with each"other, There is no evidence'to support this other than a claim that the anchor stores will somehow attracta different client base. 'But impacts are assessed by market category. The cumulative impact of new apparel stores in all" three Projects will have a compounding impact, which;is°not studied by the DEIR Comment 37) This portion of the DEIR relies upon documents that are not included in the record, nor even publicly available The discus"sign of'ecoriomic impacts refers to a BAE 2008 study titled Administrative Draft,:.Retail Marketlmpact Analysis for Proposed"East Washington Place Shopping Center in Petaluma, CA":, What is included in the DEIR Appendices is the final version, not an "administrative draft'. Since the DEIR relies upon an earlierversion for its review, that internal draft mustl be released to the public as a;document relied upon in making CEQA findings. The reliance on,a previous version also raises the prospect that the economic data usedby the DEIR may now"be inconsistent with the final version of the economic analysis included with the DEIR. Comment 38) ' The DEIR analysis of economic::iinpacts and blight relies on different assumptions than the economic impact appendix. The'DEIR states that "this analysis has'conservatively assumed no increase in sales from income growth", given the present state of the economy. The DEIR cites the; BAE Administrative Draft as the source for this conservative assumption. But a review of the actual.BAE report shows that:BAE did assume household income growth, not merely population growth. This is another example of inconsistencies within the DEIR, and undercuts the conclusions that no blight will result. l 0' EusP Washington DEIIt 20090909 --~~~ Comment 39) In general, the DEIR and the supporting BAE report rely on an outdated and wildly optimistic scenario, not the claimed conservative assumptions. All the key data inputs to assess the economic impactarebased.upon pre-recession information. The retail vacancy rate, the unemployment rate; the~volunie of retail sales, the rate of population growth are all based upon a growth projection that continues the pattern of the period from 2000 to 2006. The present economy, and Petaluma data in the public realm, all show an economic implosion has occurred. Given that, the projections of retail expenditures are grossly overstated. And if the projections of consumer expenditures are~significantly lowered, than the relative impact of the East Washington project~upon existing businesses-will be more destructive. This will be made even worse in the cumulative scenario where the three centers all are competing with existing businesses for a much smaller pool of money. Since the core assumptions underlying the BAE study are very optimistic, and not conservative, there is no substantive information to determine where and how the economic impact will be felt, and with what resultant blight. Comment 40) Since blighting impacts are a speck concern under CEQA,. all the more so in the present economy and the enormous proposed increase in retail square footage, the DEIR fails badly by failing to assess the present circumstances that resulted in the creation ofand later combination of two Redevelopment Areas ,in the core of Petaluma. The DEIR makes no reference to determinations already made by the City relative to economic deterioration and policy decisions to eliminate the already resulting blight. The baseline for the DEIR in this case is both the present economy and the present physical deterioration already targeted by the City for improvement. Comment 41) The East Washington Project and the Deer Creek Project both share a large potential market area spanning jurisdictions beyond Petaluma. But in the cumulative economic/blighting analysis, the DEIR only accounts for pending development in Petaluma. The key questions of market share, recapture of sales tax leakage, and impacts upon existing businesses all relate to the amount of businesses competing for the same dollars. Since the DEIR does not include any pending retail project in other communities=in the market area, the assumptions as to how much recapture will occur may be inflated. In addition; if the recapture is actually lower, the relative. impact upon Petaluma businesses will again by worse than predicted.. Until a cumulative economic impact .analysis reflects all projects in the specified market area, the DEIR is incomplete and cannot make any conclusions regarding blighting impacts: Project Alternatives The focus of an alternatives analysis is to consider alternatives that would "feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the 11 East Washington DEIIt 20090909 ~~~~ significantimpaets of'the;project"(Guidelines 15126.6-a). In this.case;.the DEIR offers the statutory "no project" alternative, a "mitigated" or downsized alternative, and an "alternative use" alternative thatincludes a residential component. Rejected alternatives mustbe `acknowledged and.described, and discussed as to why they were rejected from further consideration. Grounds forrejection at this point are specifically identified underCEQA. Once the Alternatives are selected; the analysis then.compares the Alternatives to the Proposed Project relative to~whetherthe Alternative wouldaessen an identified significant impact or create a new significant.-impact not present in the Project. Comment 42) The DEIR:uses a matrix and scoring system that obscures the comparisonbetween alternatives, and.impedes the function of. an Alternatives' analysis as required by CEQA. The subsequent discussion:of the alternatives provides anon-quantitative discussion of the various impacts, and then consolidates them into a single table (DEIRpg 5-2) with a scoring system that uses two "+" symbols to indicate when an Alternative provides a "substantial improvement compared. to the proposed project" for each Topic (Ibid): In that same manner a single"+" provides an "insubstantial improvement", a double.minus:represents a "substantial deterioration" relative to the proposed project, and a single minus represents an "insubstantial deterioration" relative"to the proposed:project. The weighting system,suggests that the Mitigated Project has a positive score of six "+" symbols with no increased impacts, whereas. the Alternative Use Project has only 1 positive impact improvement and:6`worsened impacts. Comment 43) Screening out the irrelevant data.,presents a different picture. The Project as proposed and examined by the DEIR will create significant unmitigated impacts onlyin the area of air quality ,(Impacts AQ-1 and Q=3). Given that; the "+"ranks assigned to'the "mitigated projectalternative" for the topics of Public. Services and Utilities are notpertinent under CEQA for determining the Environmentally Superior~Alternati~e. Similarly, the Alternate Use Alternative presents a deceptive picture. of worsening impacts in 5 topics, (air quality, noise,,public services, transportation, and utilities), -when. only the air quality impacts rise fo the level of being significant. Comment 44) The Residential Alternative is incorrectly downgraded for supposedly creating,more tra~a than the Proposed Project.. No calculation is provided to support this conclusion relative to the traffic impact assessment done for the Project itself. Comment 45) It appears,the downgrading'ofthe!.Residential Alternative is based on astated increase in daily traffic flow`beyond that predicted for the Project as proposed. But the DEIR previously had assessed traffc:impacts, and specified significant impact thresholds, based upon.peak,hour traffic volumes, riot; daily'volumes. The norm for residential traffic impacts upon peals hour periods. is to assume:roughly 10% of the total project traffic will occur in the AM peak hour and lA% in the 12 East Washington DEIR 20090909 ~~ I'-~ PM peak hour periods. By comparison with the Project as proposed; the replacement of commercial space with residential uses, as described for the Residential Alternative, would actually reduce peak-hour traffic volumes, This in turn means that this Alternative is actually better than the Project as proposed relative to traffic impacts. Comment 4~ The DEIR relies. on a biased, incomplete and inconsistent use of Project Objectives to screen out Project alternatives. The DEIR offers up Objectives for the Project. CEQA provides that alternatives to be studied should meet most, butnot all, of the Project Objectives. In addition, CEQA specifically disallows the use of the project size as a make-or-break basis for rejecting alternatives. Yet the DEIR faults allstudied Project Alternatives.by making general statements or anecdotal. comments as to how Objectives are not met, without ever applying the CEQA standard .for applying Objectives to Alternatives. Comment 47) Regarding the stated Alternatives, the discussion of public services impacts omits any discussion of public safety response time impacts. Comment 48) Regarding meeting Project Objectives, the DEIR makes the general statement that the Alternative would meet "some:" of the Project objectives but would not achieve the "intended 380,000 square feet" of project-.space. The DEIR then adds that the loss 'of 95,000 square feet is a "substantial deterioration " in meeting Project objectives. (DEIR 5-11). As discussed above, this is an improper manipulation of the relationship between Project Objectives and Project Alternatives. The CEQA Guidelines state (fill) that a credible Project alternative only has to meet a majority of the stated Objectives. There is also no basis for assigning a higher priority to one Objective aver another, as a means of skewing or biasing the comparison with Project Objectives. Comment 49) The Project has 10 stated objectives. As written, the Mitigated Alternative would meet nine of the 10 Objectives. The only objective. (as written) that is not met is providing 380,000 square feet of new retaiUoffice space. Clearly the DEIR has not demonstrated that the Alternative fails to meet a majority of the Project Objectives. Almost all of the Objectives address various goals in anon-quantified way, nor do the Objectives call for maximizing the potential City revenues or the creation of jobs or the reduction in retail leakage. Since the Project Objectives did not specify quantitative or even qualitative goals for. most of the Objectives, the DEIR cannot claim that the Objectives are not met. Comment 50) T.he DEIR fails to provide any discussion of the Alternatives that were rejected, contrary to CEQA. Altematives that were rejected for further review by the DEIR must provide a 13 East Washington DEdt 20090909 ~~~~ description of the xej ected Alternatives and the basis for screening ~.out~Alternatives from further study. In closing, the myriad of flaws make it clear that the EIR has ..substantial. flaws that not only violate the standards of GEQA, but that profoundly compromise:: the essential. purpose of an EIR, which is to provide a complete and consistent and objective analysis of a Project. Absent that, neither the public nor tfie decision making bodies can be confident of understanding the potential consequences of Project,approval. Sincerely; Scot Stegeman 14 East Wastungton DEIR 20090909 ~~ ~ _. Petaluma Neighborhood Association 40 Fourth Street Petaluma CA, 94952 November 3rd, 2009 Re: Comments on the East Washington Place FEIR Submit to administrative record: East Washington Place/EIR Dear Petaluma Planning Commissioners, We feel Design, Community &:Environment inc. (DCE); the consultants paid to conduct a proper Environmental;Impact.Report of the proposed East Washington Place have failed to provide the means by whch.we, in the community, can proceed with a proper analysis of impacts of such alarge-scale project. By inadequately addressing•tlie communities' concerns, the EWP/EIR has failed to fulfill its objectives not only within the parameters of the report. itself but, also in guidelines set-forth by CEQA. The FEIR prepared for Regency Centers' EWP also has failed to supply adequate.information to properly assess the:projects ability to meet our communities' standards for development and for general plan compliance in the following areas: bnpacts on Surrounding 1Veighborhoods: The project EIR,does not adequately address the direct or,possiblity of,long term impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods: Particularly, the neighborhood directly west of the project's site commonly referred to as "Old East Petaluma" and the neighborhoods North. West. and across the E. Washington St. corridor commonly lmown as "The Payran district". There is no question that,a,project of this scale would not only increase the traffic flow through these two neighborhoods but,. may also disrupt the traffic flow patterns down these cross streets enough to significantly impact the residents within these neighborhoods. Why does the EIR.not aclaiowledge this potential impact? Aesthetics & Compatibilities with Surrounding Uses: The land use and project aesthetics are clearly outof sync with the:expectations of the Petaluma community. Yetahe;project:EIR fails to adequately address this issue. The Petaluma GP"2025 clearly states (table 4.1-1 of ewp/eir}:new development should: - Strengthen the visual and aesthetic character of major arterial, corridors - Orientation of facades toward street - Facilitate development patterns that provide an urban edge along East Washington St. - Ensure development maintains a public, pedestrian, and active face along East Washington St. The EWP/EIR uses thesepoints as reference but, then fails to adequately address why the project proposal does not reflect these.standards. Why does the report not consider these elements as significant impacts? Why were no alternative designs.given to mitigate or address these obvious deficiencies in the project that.lead to undue impacts on the project site area and its surroundings? ` The EWP/EIR (page 4.1-8) also states that the "development is generally compatible with surrounding uses" then. goes on to list Washington Square and Petaluma. Plaza. Why would the "compatibility" issue seemingly be appropriately applied to existing :conditions at sites at these locations and not sites that lay substantially closer in proximity? Shouldn't community use areas such as, the Library, Pool Center, Sonoma/Marin Fairgrounds, McKinley Elementary, Kenilworth Park and surrounding:residential certainly be taken into consideration? It also states "development of site would not result in the degradation of a scenic vista from locations off-site". This is preposterous. Just ask the residents along, Payran whose homes directly face the project site. Given the rules of sightperspectve, is it not reasonable to acknowledge that any resident who happens to live west with a view east over the project sight line, would potentially have their scenic vista of the west Petaluma hills impacted? Addition of genilworth Drive Cut- Negative Lnpacts/GP compliance: Addition of Kenilworth drive cut at Southbound 101 on. ramp and. E. Washington: After discussing this particular aspect ofthe.project's roadway:layout with many long-time residents of Petaluma (meaning residents who have lived here.pre 1950's) it has come to our attention that the repositioning/addition of the Kenilworth.Dr, cut:into E. Washington Street at the 101 southbound on ramp would be a major traffic/pedestrian safety issue. Based upon the history of the fore-mentioned road cut prior to the building of.the original Kenilworth High; this was in fact the original position which is depicted in the EWP project plans (directly inline with Kenilworth Drive itself, along,the west boundary of the project site). In fact it was relocated shortly after the school and pool center were completed after it was determined this position to be unsafe. At that. time the Kenilworth Dr. cut was positioned as it is presently, at the four- corner intersection inline with Ellis St. The EWP/EIR does not address this "repositioning" and additional curb cut as being atraffic/safety issue. nor, does it mention it in the traffic report. How will the traffic engineers resolve this preordained condition and mitigate the-negative impacts to the pedestrian safety conditions this proposed driveway cut would undoubtedly create? Furthermore, what justification.does the project developer have for-not complyingwith our GP2025 on this specific issue? (see note below) Reference Note: Our GP2025 clearly stipulates on pages 2-9 to 2-10 under section "GOAL 2-G-4: Washington Corridor" as follows: C. As developmentlredevelopment occurs require the reduction or elimination of curb cuts along East VJ.ashington Street; and encourage potential consolidation of lots to maximize access from side streets. Alternatives: Disappointedly, the.EWP/EIR offers only three alternatives for their project (page 5-l) none of which substantiality: deviates from its primary proposed layout. Opponents=and proponents alike, see this as a lack of initiative by Regency Centers. After countless hours of meetings between the members of our neighborhood organization, various community members and the representatives of Regency, during the course of several years in the process, we've seen little to no change.in theirproject froin:where it originally started. Atths stage, why does the EIR/Regency offer such limited alternatives for their project site?• Please refer to my attached .comments entitled "General Plan Compliance for Future Retail Development" for further elaboration in the area of "Alternatives". The above-mentioned problems with the EWP/EIR are just some but riot all of the primary concerns that' our group: has raised time and time again. For more in-depth commentazy expressing our concerns. witfi the deficiencies of the EWP/EIR also refer to our consultant Scot 3tegman's report also. submitted at tonight's meeting. At this stage, until the EWP/EIR's preparers are. willing to properly- address the impacts ofthis large-scale developmentand the project developers are open to working with our community to achieve a better projectplan that complies with our standards, I:respeetfully request that you deem this EIIt to be inadequate at -this time. Sincerely, Paul Francis Petaluma Neighborhood Association Petaluma Resident -23 ' Petalut~aa Neighborhood Association. , 40 Fourth Street Petaluma, CA 94952 TO: Community Development Department Attn: Betsi Lewitter, Project Planner City of Petaluma 11 English St. Petaluma CA 94952-2610 Original~date submitted: October 27th, 2008 Resubmitted: December 7th, 2009 Re: Public Comment on the East Washington Place EIR Dear Ms. Lewitter, Thank you for this opportunity to offer my suggestions, concerns, and comments on the East Washington Place (EWP) Draft Environmental Impact Report{DEIR). Below I have outlined several potential impacts and community concerns of the proposed project that I feel the DEIR has not adequately addressed. You will also find maps attached that offer suggestions for alternatives to the design currently proposed by Regency Centers. Traffic and Auto-centric Impacts: The number ofmiles-driven by the average household forshopping has increased by more than 40% in the-past decade. Shopping-related driving for the country as a whole rose by almost 95 billion miles in the past eleven years. What this equates to is an additional 40 million metric tons of CO2 emissions above 19901evels. In 2007 we saw the State Attorney General's office mandate that new development address greenhouse gas emissions as part of CEQA requirements. In. recent years we have seen many cities address traffic impacts. related to retail development by imposing. stricter guidelines and implementing pedestrian, bike and transit oriented design requirements into their building codes. I feel that EWP and EWP/DE]:R does not address the heavy traffic volumes thoroughly enough and needs to properly address those impacts by first changing the auto-centric character of'its design. Community Use Areas: The site location of the EWP project is directly adjoined to several sites, which have been designated as community use azeas. These areas include the Petaluma Swim Center and Skate Sark, The Sonoma/Marin Fairgrounds, Kenilworth Park, Petaluma Teen Center, and The Petaluma Public Library. The EWP/DEIR has not taken into consideration the projects possible impact of impeding .access to these locations. Better yet, the DEIR. and the project's designers should address these issues specifically and make suggestions o£including new elements info the project design would compliment and integrate with the surrounding community use areas. * Summary ofTi•avel Trends: National Household Travel Survey (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Transportation Dec. 2004) r-ail Impacts on Surrounding;Neighborhoods: Although.the EWP/DEIR provides a,description.oftke proximity of the neighborhoods to the North, South, East and West of the project site. It falls shorh~of a proper examination of the indisputable impacts. a project.of this size would have on the,resdents~.of those surrounding neighborhoods. `The neighborhood West of the site, the "Old East Side Neighborhood", is one of tree lined walkable streets. and historic homes dating back 100 years or more. In this case, the EWP/DEIR does not address additional cut through traffic that would result as drivers seek to avoid added traffic congestion along the East Washington Street corridor. The EWP/DEIR should instead attempt to address and mitigate not only the project's potential for increased traffic impacts in adjoining neighborhoods. But, also attempt to integrate design elements of the project that will make for a better transition into existing neighborhoods without increasing traffic flow through side streets. SMART Codes/Central Petaluma Specific.Plan: The EWP/DEIR addresses impacts and seeks mitigations on aproject°-model with a density equivalent to that of an average suburban plan. Once an~infill project's density gets down to the level of the average suburb, you simply cannot walls anywhere anymore. Kids cannot safely walls to school, and residents cannot safely walk to the shopping center. I would request that the EWP project be included in the CPSP and that SMART code concepts be integrated into the overall design of the site. Sustainable Development:. The recent implementation of the Petaluma General Plan 2025 has granted the former Kenilworth site a "mixed use" zoning:designation. At the same time section, 9-G-1 of the GP states, "establish a diverse and sustainable local economy that meets the needs of the community's residents..." As of yet, the ciiyhas not established or~defined any guidelines for theterm "mixed use." Therefore, sustainability can hardlybe obtained'withintke scope of the EWP "mixed. use" proposal if no clear parameters have been:defined. Based on these facts the EWP/DEIR should expand its study to include one, if not several, "mixed use" designs of a more diverse nature. Alternative Designs: I respectively request that the EWP site be subject to redesign taking into consideration, but not limited to, the concepts and concerns, which I have expressed here. I've attached several draft drawings of different design layouts for the East Washington Place site foryour consideration (see attached plans A, B, and C). I also request that the City of Petaluma and Regency Centers hold public forums so that the public canoe properly informed.of the scope of the project and also have the opportunity to participate in a more direct fashion. Not only with the design and development of the Kenilworth site but, with Petaluma's future as well. Sincerely; Paul Francis Co-founder Petaluma Neighborhood. Association Resident, 216 Vallejo Street (707)-763-2463 ~-~ Kenilworth site design plan A B F ^,• ' ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~:~ ~ ~ . ~~~; ~ooa . -. .~`~j ., ,~--rte: r---- -; r t~ r .~-a. I, .f.'; ~o~ ::: - ~~~ - ~: i `'~~ l~~ _ _- ..-~ =ail .- - Kenilworth site design plan B I t _~ 6 .~ I ~/~~,. ~~/~/~, ~ v/ r,.. ~:i~ •~ ~, `~ _~ ~ / .. ~ i ~~ _ ~' ~_e.::~~ 0 0 0 o f .~~_ ~~ ~~~~~ j-=~7 Kenilworth site design plan C ~:..m. FatD~at9tistri z~: ;::~- ~u:. / ~: :`'' r.,; ///,..~_ .. . '~ /..', / ~' ~ ,y' . ~~~' f'f ~ // 0 0 0 ~~~ ®® ~~~~; ~I .~ ~~ ~~ ,~ ~t,^. i.`';. . _ _ __. , (. -~ In the Fall of 2008 the .Petaluma Neighborhood Associafion presented this petition to the Petaluma City Council' with over 1,500 signatures of support: The following is that document., es®nsile eta~l ®evelprnent in Petaluma We, the undersigned citizens of Petaluma wish to encourage responsible retail development while preserving the small town character of our community. The City of Petaluma's General. Plan 2025 describes Petaluma as having aclose- knit, neighborly and family friendly city possessing a rich historic character. The General Plan prioritizes'the ,need to strengthen the visual and aesthetic character of major arterial corridors and enhance downtown 6y .preserving its historic character, increasing accessibility and residential opportunities, and ensuring a broad range of businesses and.activities. We fled that the construction of large-scale. bigbox chain store retail developments will threaten the viability of the. local businesses and economy, create. traffic congestion, overburden limited water resources and put an undue burden on our towns irifrastructure. Proposed ,retail developments (including East Washington Place, DSL and Chelsea Outlet F-xpansion) if approved should be amended to include: A 50,000 square foot building s"rze cap in all commercial districts to support the local economy and preserve the scale and character of the City. All applicants seeking ;a permit to build large-scale retail development larger than 25,000 square feet must pay for a comprehensixe fiscal impact study, a public hearing and related' municipal staff support in order to estimate the positive and negative economic effects of the project on the local area prior to project approval. A parking cap of 2 spaces per thousand square feet of retail, unless the project includes a parking structure with retail on the ground level. All new retail developments should implement Smart Code principles and be in keeping with the aesthetics and preservation of the' historical and cultural character as defined in the General Plan 2025 & the Central Petaluma Specific Plan. .Proposed future projects will not add to the current net water usage. Approved projects must pay for new water conservation improvements to the existing water supply system thaYwill yield equal or more conservation of the existing supply to offset new demand. We believe fh, ese should .apply to all proceedings, applications and petitions: pending on, or commenced after, the date of filing this petition atthe Petaluma City Clerk's office. ~'" '~. Z: '~' i 3 .. ~: e; qq ~~ So ' ~ .y~ -!~ . } ~ s . '8ttiil!{d~~yA ~!1 '~7F~ e .. ~e ~ ~ U]'~~~g~a~~! ~~ff u ~Il1X0~7~J ~ VWQ'1973d, ~ .IOI,~iVdS~Hp`JIH?B,,L'8~ti~ISNO.7J`ld®SVM,LSF!9 ~~tY 1ClI~ ILI~~~ ~. `c _ ac.g3 C~o ~ •. _ ~ -~ _ . ~I U ~~S v. A s ~ , r ~_ . ~ ,~, ~ i ~~~ !fir. f ~ `~ ;~ I f ///y r R7 J a 8~ I ~ ft w `',:; Q '///~.~~' . ~ - ; j,,,: .; ~ .. .. ,; ',~ ; 1~~ ~ `: , r ////~~/ ~ ~ Y~ ~~ ~ ~ 3 r ,, .r C, .: --- i R - . Ir r f 1~ 1L.1111111 i ~ reaa5al ~ ~, li yi..: -- - ~- I j I I },~ ' `--`~~rl ~ ~ / , iii ~ II 1 ^~' I I ^ .. ~. ! I 1 \, ~ \ L. ~;:_ -''~ a II ~ .~. ~ =_ ~~ ~ I. !, II ~ -- ,.,1 ~. :, , ~~ _ _ I. rl . ; _ ®~ ~~ _ -~., . - - _ _ ,~ n. ~~, ~ _ III I L /' ,~;,;.,. ~ ~, . e, ( _ ~. 1 I' I I . $s 4. I ~ ~; ~~~° ga ~' ga ' -u ° .~ ' ~ `` p iid" ~~~~ a §Ta e 6° f ~ ' ~ S~° ~ U] ~j.Fe~ " E~ ~~ YIN~IO~1V~ ~ ~'I973d TOT.IYA1IfiJIH~S~LLSN07Jt~b'T'AASSV'3 ~a~~sid ~~~;S~s~ ~.51+~ ~ m c E o $ ~~-° ~ ~ a6• ~ ~~ fl E °~. ~~ ~ ® r , ~ N '~ ~ ® ~ ii 9s U m o ~ I ,; ,`~ /q~ ~ S.x93` ~ ' ~ ~'i : ~ ~'i~ ~ Imo` 'ND-0'EkG tn.~ ~ . . ~ < ~~~ ad ~ 9 ~ '~~ a ~ % f .,k .. /f ~Vr~ ~1 ~gw. ~'~ Rl.~ ® ~~.~ b ~ .~ 1 "/ :/ ~~ . ~ ..:, u 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 oa, o. ,,,r~.. ~ I . J~~ ' ~~ ; ~ /I~ / ~/ ' ~~~ ~// •~ ,'r ~ 1 J~ '~~ ~I ~~' ' ~ ~ /~~ ~' // .~,~ ~,; /; ~, r ,/r ~ ~'~ ,. ,. < `~'r ~~ i , - .~9. ,,.: ii ~`~ ~ --'--~ ~' II ~ , l~~ L _ ~:~;.:~- I~sal~ i II ~' ; I FI ~ , ' I - ^~~ ~ I . ;. .i r~ ~_ IIIIIIIlIIIII!ill ~ .. 4 . id Ipt . \ i ~1Ngyq~ _ 9 fi gzo -~ ~u4a ~ --I ~ ~ ~~ `" ~%~,. U ~ ~~ ~,i ~ .:% - .• ~ / ~f; ;, ~` ,°; ~~ ~' ~ ~~ ., .~ ~,. ;: /.~/ ~;~. ~~~ ri ~ // /~~ ~~~ // fff ~, wry i~ / ~' ! ~ ~~ ~~ ~ % r: ~~~~~• ¢ ,~j,. . ~ /,:. ~ ~~// ,.., y.~/ x ~: ~ o r: a ~ .. . ~• .. ,~ . o.„oooooooo~ ~~A ~~'~g ~~~~~ s~~ ~, m pm 8 3A ~~: ~ ~$ro ~ ~. & P1' ~m. ~a'~~ ~~~~ e 6. ro:~" ~ c ~~ C ~.. _.-_ - v ., ~ ;~ -1 £ ° < E'3 ~,~ .~s9.w`9~- Y`/ 6C:S a ~~ ~~66.~~ ~j as~~ ~~rrEAST~W~AyS~HSINGTON SS >II 01 WAY ~ .~1#~~u~. 0 ~ `} ~~ ~ ~' Vf I o~ `~ a ~ ~ ~ :^ ~~.~~ A i ` ; m ~ w GH 1 _ __ PETALiRNA ~vCALII~OItNIe1;- e! N ~ cu ~, I ~- j ~tl i ~: o 1i F c r, - € ~~ p~ O'Hagan, Jennifer From: Dale Axelrod [dales@sonic.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 1:58 PM To: O`Hagan, Jennifer Subject: Letter fo the Editor Re Regency EIR Dear Ms. Ohagan, I have sent this email to every other Commission member. Would you please get this email to Commissioner Curtis G. Johansen (he doesn't have an email address listed on the City website) in time for tonight's meeting? Thanks very much, Dale Dear Planning Commission Members, Since I must miss tonight's meeting, FYI here is my Letter to the Editor which I hope will be published in Thursday's Argus-Courier. Thanks, in advance for your careful consideration as to whether this FEIR is defective, and should be rejected. Dale Dear Editor: Your front page coverage of Friedman's "bursting back into Petaluma:s retail future" as part of the proposed Regency shopping center neglected to report the real bombshell that was dropped at the Planning Commission meeting: That city staff, along with a team of Regency representatives, made an extensive presentation, submitted a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), and requested the Planning Commission's approval that evening, without ever even once mentioning this major new tenant. Petaluma has every reason'to welcome Friedman's back into town, but we also have every right to expect full disclosure in an FEIR, especially when there are a host of unanticipated impacts to consider when locating a home improvement center at the East Washington Street site. One can't help but wonder what other significant issues and impacts this developer hopes might slip through under the radar. ~'~3 Dale Axelrod Dale Axelrod 522 East "D" St Petaluma CA 94952-3212 Phones ----- SF Voice Mail: 415-824-1549. ------------- Petaluma studio:. 707-762-4.125 ------------------------- Mobile: 707-235-9089 --------------------------- Fax: 707,762-4041 Email ----------------------- dalea(a.sonic.net ;- - 3 200 FOURTH ST. SUITE 400 P.O. BOX 878 SANTA ROSA, CA 95402-0878 PHONE 707.547.2000 FAX 707.526..2746 WEB BEYERSCOSTIN.COM . ~ g~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION i ~1 C®STIN December 7, 2009 BY HAND AND EMAIL Plaruzulg Commissioners City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Re: East Washington Place Project (Regency Center) Dear Commissioners:. I am respondingto.applicant's December 1, 20091etter in which it acknowledged that, while it had anon-Uinding letter of intent (LOI) with Friedman Brothers, it was not proposing to amend its project application. In the words of the applicant, "[t]he project _ analyzed in the EIR" - i.e., one without Friedman s - "is the same project now before the ~~ ~} Planning Commission." This. is a positive development as it indicates that the applicant recognizes that were Friedmann to be included in the project. at this time, such inclusion would require further environmental review. Laurel HeiglTts Improve~~2ent Assn. v. Rege~zfs of Universitlj of California, 47 Cal. 3d 376, 398 (1988) (EIR must analyze at least the general effects of the reasonably foreseeable:future uses of the...facility, the environmental effects of those uses, and the currently anticipated measures for mitigating those effects"). Given that Friedman s is in fact not a component of the proposed project, it would be both prudent and appropriate for any resolution of approval, or conditions attached thereto, to make that fact explicit - i.e., that approval was made without consideration of ~ home improvement center at the site, and that the inclusion of such a center in t11e future would require further review under CEQA and all other applicable local and state codes, ordinances and regulations. Such an approach would retain for the City and applicant greater flexibility with regard to the project's tenant mix, and would leave open the option for Friedman s to locate to an alternative site such. as the proposed Lowe's center in the event its current negotiations do not evolve beyond the LOI stage. More importantly, it would also j allowthe public to know with certainty what in fact is the actual project Ueing, .. ,. ,_ ._ DCC ~~ `~ 2(]C ~, F f ~~ Planiung.Commission December 7, 2009 Page 2 approved, and what wouad occur should the project later be amended to include Friedman s or another home improvement center. Sincerely, Bob Haroche (~ t ~-3~ 200 FOURTH 5T. SUITE 4.00 P..O. BOX 878 SANTA ROSA, CA 95402-0878 PHONE 707.547.2000 FAX 707.~5.26:2Z46 WEB BEYERSCOSTIN.COM B E Y E R S A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION C®STIN November 23, 2009 BY HAND AND EMAIL Plaruling Commissioners City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Re: East Washington Place Project (Regency Center) BC File No. 6634 Dear Commissioners: I write to express concern regarding the East Washington Place (Regency Center) EIR coining before you for recornrnended approval. Specifically, the Commission should be mindful that while the EIR may provide adequate environmental review for the "project" as described in the document itself, the report should not, and may not, be used as a basis for approving a different project -. one involving different tenants and uses, a different site plan, different environrrlental unpacts. Unfortunately, language in its report suggests that staff may be considering doing just that. The City should not allow the CEQAr process to be short circuited. If the project has changed, or is still uncertain, the EIR must be updated to account for these new circumstances. Similarly, the Fiscal Economic Impact Analysis must be updated to account for new or different tenants. For four years, the project has designated a Target store as its anchor tenant. Beginning earlier this year, rumors have circulated that a different anchor tenant might be involved, in lieu. of or in addition to Target. Attention. has recently focused on the possibility of a home improvement store and lumber yard, such as Friedman Brothers, Lower or Home. Depot.l Now staff itself, in its report released November 18, staff itself lends eredence.to this potential change in the project's definition: ~ See, e.g., October 26,'2009' Press Democrat article; "Friedman's may build on Hopper St. after all;' June 1, 2009 community blog article "Show me the tenants" (www.keeppetalumaeggcentric.com); May 4, 2009 Press Democrat article, "Friedman Bros. sets sights on Lowe's proposed site." G:\ 6634\Letters\PetPlanComn12009-11-23.doc ~- 31 Planning. Commission. November 23, 2009 Page 2 The applicant is in ongoing discussions with various prospective tenants for possible inclusion to the proposed project. The physical .requirements, loading requirements, and dimensions of their desired operations maybe different than the proposed site plan as reflected on t11e current Vesting Tentative Map application and `related project plans and exhibits. (Staff report at p.14). Staff acknowledges the. possibility that changilg the. mix of tenants may cause "a significant change proposed to the project." It proposes to address that "significant change" by relying on an abbreviated environmental review- namely an Initial Study to be completed at a 1~cter date (staff report at~p.14). But an Initial Study undertaken after EIR certification would provide no opportunity for public review and input, which is the very reason an EIR was required for this project to begin with. The City and _ public are entitled to know the actual, specific site plan and use to be made at the project site before being asked to approve it. To be clear, the impacts from a home improvement store are not the same as those from. a Target store -not even close. A Target store is oriented toward consumers and homeowners; a home ,improvement store is oriented to consumers as well as contractors and tradesmen. A home improvement sto"re; with large semi trucks making regular trips. throughout the day; has different traffic impacts than a Target. store, where passenger cars and vehicles predominate. Impacts.on access and circulation are also different when a home improvement store is involved. Compare ;the impacts on East Washington; the present "primary access" for retail customers, to the impacts on Lindberg Lane, the preferred route for contractors. A home improvement store also has different requirements for loading and un-loading by tradesmen and suppliers. While a Target.store conducts its operations' primarily under one roof, a home improvement store such as Friedman Brothers includes a arge outdoor lumber yard. with: acres of lumber, concrete and other construction equipment and supplies. It also includes far more farm and agricultural products and supplies on-site. The EIR does not identify,. much ess analyze, the impacts which would flow from this different use of the site -just as it does not analyze the change in visual impacts on 101 and the surrounding parcels, nor the different impacts on noise and:air quality. In short, adding a home improvement center into t11e mix fundamentally changes the veiy nature of the project under consideration. G:\6634\Letters\PetPlanComm 2009-11-23.doc ~~3 Planning Commissioin November 23, 2009 Page 3 It should go without saying that "[a]n accurate project description is necessary for an intelligent. evaluation of the potential environmental effects of a proposed activity."2 That is why "[i]f the descriptioin is inadequate because it fails to discuss the complete project; the environmental analysis will probably reflect the same mistake."3 To Ue adequate under CEQA, an EIR's project description must include both the "precise location and boundaries" of the project as well as a "description. of the project's technical, econonnic, and environmental characteristics."4 The EIR may not analyze only a portion of 'the project, or only some aspects of the project, and defer other portions or aspects .for later consideration. To do so would mean: that. "some important ramifications of the proposed project remain[ ]hidden fiom view at-the time the project [is] being discussed aild approved" - a result which "frustrates one of the core goals of CEQA."s In a recent court decision, involving circumstancesnot unlike those presented here, a court ruled that where proposed tenants for a shopping center have different environmental impacts, the EIR must identify those tenants; if not by name then by proposed activity and intensity of use: is a necessar~prerecluisite to accurate identification and analysis of the environmental consequences that will result from approval. of the pro-posed projects: When the particular type of:retail business planned for a proposed project will leave unique or additional adverse impacts, then disclosure of the type of business is necessary in order'to accurately recognize and analyze the environmental effects that will result fiom the proposed project. A rendering plant has different environmental. impacts than a chandler.... f Tlo simply state as did the Gosford EIR that'no stores have been identified' without disclosing the type of retailers NlcQeeen v. Mid-Peninsula Regonnl Open Space District, 202 Cal. App. 3d 1136,1143 (1988)'. s CEB, Practice Under )ze Cniifornia Environ7nental Qualiftj Act ~ 12.7 (2009). `~ 14 California Code of Regulations (hereafter "Guidelines") ~ 15124 . 5 Santiago Counti~ Water Dist. v. County of Orange, 118 -Cal. App. 3d 818, 830 (1981). G:\6634\Letters\Petl'lanComm 200911-23.doc r-39 Plaruzulg Commission November 23; 2009' Page 4 .envisioned. for the proposed project is not .only misleading and inaccurate, but it hints at mendacty.6 After years of environmental review under one set of assumptions, it is curious and disturbing to learn at this late date that the project may include a site plan and tenants different than what. the EIR had studied, and what tlae public had been Ied to believe. The City should take-care that the enviroiunental review for this project not be finis-used to approve a projecf under one set of assumptions, while allowing development to occur under a:different set of conditions: The "project" cannot Ue viewed as some sort of cipher, an undefined placeliolder whose environmental impacts may, or may not have, been adequately analyzed. It would be no remedy to this lack of analysis to simply-certify the EIR now based on incomplete data,. as staff suggests, and then later "fill in the blanks" by means of a negative declaration. CEQA does not permit such course. Instead it requires that new information concerning a significant change in the site plan and anchor tenant(s) be included now in the draft EIR, and that that EIR then Ue re-cileulated.~ Any other course would signify that after four years, the "public comment on the draft [EIR] was in effect meaningless."$ If the project has not changed from that described.:u1 the EIR itself, then the report appears adequate. However, if the project now involves a home improvement store with significantly different impacts, the Commission should send the EIR and Fiscal Economic Impact Analysis back to staff to complete the required analysis. Sincerely, Bob Haroclle BH:sb s Bakersfield: Citizens for Local Control v. Cift~ of Bakersfieid,124 Cal. App. 4th 1184,1213 (2004) (emphasis. added). ~ Guidelines' 15,088..5 s Latcrel Heightslnprovenient;Ass'n v. Regents of the Unversih~ of California; 4 Cal. 4th 1112, 1130 (1985) (significant new information discovered prior to EIR certification requires re-circulation). G:\663\Letters\PetPIanComm 2009-11-23;doc Petaluma Public Art Committee December 7,:2009 Re: Statement of Position on `Regency Centers Proposed Art for Easf Washington PIaza. Shopping- Center- Submitted by::Gollette 1Vdchaud, Past Chair, Public Art Committee The Public Art Committee is very pleased to have outstanding art pieces by two acclaimed public.artists/sculptors proposed by Regency. Centers for the East Washington Plaza Shopping Center. The Publc:Ait Committee has seriously considered the context and community in which the two. pieces are to be installed. and, wishes to express and document the following concern with the overuse. of an egg related theme and mosaic medium forthe proposed art pieces titled "Nest" by Gordon Huether and "Fountainhead" by Seyed' Alavi. The Committee's concernswere discussed with the Art Consultant, Chandra Cerrito, and one of their artists, Seyed Alai, at the. PublicArt Committee's meeting.. on June 25th. We strongly recommended at that time that only one of egg themed piece 6e installed, and . that an alternative non-egg themed art piece be considered for the second installation. We received email-correspondence from Chandra Cerrito on 7/24/09 regarding Regency Center's response to the Public Art Committee's recommendation and feedback on their public art component. _ We vvere informed that Regency's plan is°to move forward with both art pieces despite the committee's recommendations and concerns. It should be noted, however, that Regency:Cenfersdld incorporatethe:committee's suggestion to increase the height of'the "Nest"'by Gordon Huether from its originally proposed 18' to 2T high to allow it more exposure and contrast with the surrounding buildings. The Public Art Committee'has no authority over the public art proposed by private developers as long. as it meets the criteria set forth in the Public Art Ordinance, and without a doubt, both art pieces proposed by Regency Centers meet the ordinance's criteria for public art.' The Public ArE Committee is not~offering further recommendation to either Regency Centers or the.city council in regards to the.art component of the East Washington Plaza development project. We simply want our concerns and recommendations concerning the art component to be documented. `- ~ g Farmer, Derek_ From: Brown,, John Sent: Monday, :December 07, 2009 3:57 PM To: '.Geoff L Bratlley' Cc: Farmer,:, Decek Subject: FW: Position Statement on Regency Center's Art Component Attachments: Statement of Position120709.doc FYI -and presentation to PC at next meeting. JB From: Collette Michaud [mailto:crmichaud@comcast.net] Sent: Monday,. December 07, 2009 2:15 PM _.:.._- To: Brown, John;-Cooper; Claire --- - __._.... Cc: Crump, Katie;. sally krahn; Louise Leff Subject: Position Statement on Regency Center's Art Component Dear John, Recently, we were contacted by the. Planning Commission regarding our thoughts on their proposed art component for the Regency Centers East Washirigton Plaza development.. As you .may know we have been meeting with their art consultant, Chandra Cerrito, and manager Bruce Qualls~over the past 3 years about the art component for this project. They.have been very generous with their time and have demonstrated a commitment to excellence in the area of art. Our last meeting was in June 2009 vyhece Chandra and Bruce brought the committee up to date on the two pieces Regencyis proposing. After giving our feedback and recommendations atthat meeting and through email correspondence, we were'informed a few weeks laterthat they plan to move forward with the proposed two pieces despite some strong concerns from the committee. Enclosed is a position statement from the ~PublicArts Committee regarding the proposed art component. The Public Art Commitfee'has no authority over the public art proposed by private: developers.as long as it meets the criteria set forth in the Public Art Ordinance, and without a doubt, both art pieces proposed by Regency Centers meet-the ordinance's criteria for;public art. This position paper issimply to inform you and the Planning Commission of the Public Arts Committee's position in .regards to the art that has been proposed. am happy to answer any further questions. Collette Collette Michaud Petaluma Public Art "Committee crmichaud@comcast:net 707-781-3131 "I d" f l ~ 1 ~ 6 1~ I~ ~~~,Cr ~ ~ ~~ [ 1 1331 ~J(JEi"H'C~iLIFQRN6A BQULEI'APJ, SU F E 2~ ~~ALi~U7 uREEIt, LAAl9~~ftldiA 9A53G-~S4~# P/,t! ~25:=3373°~a G25.~3d3.33~6'x.~ www.mrt~blaw.coa~~ A LAw CORP`flRAT[ON PATRICIA E. CURTIN (925)979-3353 pcurtin@mmblaw.com November 24, 2009 Via U.S. Mail and Email (cdd(a,ci.petaluma.ca.us) Derek Farmer Community Development Department City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Re: Comments on East Washington Place Final EIR Our Fite No. 1.0079-002 Dear Mr. Farmer: Our office represents Syers Properties, owner of the. Plaza North Shopping Center in Petaluma. On behalf our client, we submitted comments o.n the Draft Environmental. Impact Report {EIR) for the East Washington Place Project. We have reviewed the Final EIR dated November 17, 2009. This letter, ,in addition to the comments prepared by Traffic Engineers Abrams and Associates, constitutes our client's comments on the Final EIR. A. Traff c The Final EIR analysis and responses with respectto traffic are legally inadequate. The Final EIR responses state that the' Rainer interchange will be completed by 2025 and in reliance on this interchange, concludes that no significant cumulative traffc impacts will result.. Since there is insufficient funding for the Rainer interchange and it'has been. acknowledged that the City cannot predict when it would be completed, Rainer interchange cannot be used in the cumulative impact analysis to substantiate the reduction in 2025 traffic volumes (See. for example response 7-1.4 and 7-16). Thee"cumulative project" (i.e., Rainer interchange) must be reasonably foreseeable and'there must be substantial evidence that the interchange will actually be built in order to use the. interchange in the cumulative analysis. Moreover; the: Final. EIR states that the payment of impact fees will serve as adequate mitigation for off-site traffic-impacts (see,,response 6-17). However, the City .does not have the funds to .complete at' least one needed improvement, the Rainer interchange. If the record does not show how the .balance of the funds for the improvement will. be obtained and substantial evidence that it will be built, the alleged payment of fees does not_constitute adequate mitigation. ~~J Betsi Lewitter and Derek Farmer November 24, 2009 Page 2 See Anderson First Coalitionw. City ofAnderson, 1.3,0 Cal. App. 4th' 1173 (2005). California courts. have found that.. "even where a developer's contribution. to roadway improvements is reasonable, a fee program'is insufficient mitigation; where; even with that contribution, a county will not have sufficient funds to mitigate the effects on traffic."_ See Endangered Habitats -League v. County of Orange 131 Cal: App: 4th'777, 7$5 (200.5). Therefore, the current traffic mitigation measures remain inadequate fo reduce the impacts to: a level of insignificance, for those impacts identified as insignificant. The City cannot use the .Rainer interchange as a cumulative project since there is no funding for this improvement: Also; the City cannot use the payment of fees as adequate mitigation since there is no fee program in place that will ensure the eompletion of the needed improvements, like the Rainer interchange. B. Master Response •1- Water Supply The information in the Final EIR regarding water supply availability and the changed circumstances since the adoption of the 2025 General Plan is new additional information. This information would cause more severe significant effects than previously examined in the Draft EIR relating to water supply. The water supply for the project "should be re-evaluated given the new circumstances and must be recirculated for public review and comment. Moreover, the Final EIR "still fails to sufficiently analyze the effectiveness of the mitigation measures in the Draft EIR regarding the increase in water supply and there is still no evidence in the record that those measures will provide increased water supply. C. Response 6-8 The response notes that a new well is located on the project site and is a condition of an approval but is not a mitigation measure and not part of'the `-`project." Since the well is on the project site and required by a condition of approval, it must be analyzed as part of the "project" under CEQA. I). .Response 26-2 This response states that the speaker has a desire to see a Target store in the project and more retail shopping. This speaker's comments are also summarized as the speaker"expressed a desire to see a. Target store, because. it is needed and the stores where they shop are not local." This comment~is incorrectly attributed to this speaker and incorrectly states~the testimony. Those comments were not made'by this speaker. Instead, this. speaker commented that the DEIR analysis was'inadequate and that further economic studies and analysis of the impacts on the Target and other anchor tenants on -the Kmart should be prepared by the applicant to determine if there will be significant impacts and that there was no meaningful analysis of how the new retail will .impact the existing retail uses. The Final EIR has not.been updated and should be updated and •recirculated. MIvIB'10079-002:1053863.1 ~v, Betsi Lewitter and Derek Farmer November 24, 2009 Page 3 Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the Final EIR. Very truly yours, MORGAN MILLER BLAIR PATRICIA E. CURTIN PEC:kIm cc: Syers Properties, Dr. Charles Syers Plaza North, Craig Woolmington-Smith Compass Commercial, Katy Schardt Abrams & Associates, Charlie Abrams MMB:10079-002:1053863.1 ~--~5