Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1.A-Attch3 04/25/2011•. 1 t CITY OF PETALUMA STAFF REPORT rmoHYi�ENr �> Conununity pgvelopment Departntent, Plaunirig Division, 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952 (707) ,778 -43 Fax (767) 778 -4498 E-mail. petalu►►:apla►tniiti& petalunia ca.us 7 DATE I i I March 22, 201.1' AGENDA ITEM NO. 7 TO: Planning Commission FROM:: Heather Hines, Deputy Planning Manager REVIEWED BY: . Geoff Bradley, Planning Manager SUBJECT: DEER'CREEK VILLAGE North,McDowell and Rainier: Avenue, APN 008-:121 -014 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I RECOMMENDATION: : Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: o Provide Commission comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report; and ® Receive public testimony on the Draft Environmental Impact Report P ROJECT SUMMARY Project: Project Planner: Project Applicant: Property Owner: Nearest Cross'Streets: Property Size: Site Ciiameteristies: Deer Creek Village Intersection of North McDowell and Rainier APN: 007 -380 -005 and W7-580-027 Project File No 09 -SPC -0091 Heather Hines, Deputy'Planning Manager Merlone =Geier Management Merlone Geier Management 3580 Carmel Mountain Rd., Suite #260 North McDowell and Rainier 36.55 acres (approx.) The project site is at the southwest corner -of the 'intersection of North ° McDowell and Rainier Avenue. The approximately 36.55 rectangular site is made up of two parcels a 26.20 acre lot on the north and a 10.35 acre .parcel on the south. The project site is Deer'Creek Village DEIR 09 -SPC -0091 Page 1 relatively flat and is currently vacant. Existing vegetation on the life includes grasses, three oak trees, and several redwoods along the south/southwestern boundary. Approximately 0.81 acres of seasonal wetlands are located on, the site in separate locations. A drainage : swwale runs through the north portion of the site from east to west (labeled as "Deer Creek" on project plans). Existing Use: Proposed Use: Current Zoning: Proposed Zoning: Vacant Commercial/Office MU1B No :change General Plan Land Use: Mixed Use Proposed GP Land Use: No :change Subsequent Actions after Planning Comm_ ission Review: City Council review of the Draft'E_1R to consider its adequacy and identify any changes, ,clarifications or additional' information to be incorporated in a Final EIR City Council considerati6iih tion on the Final EIR (Per the City's Environmental Review Guidelines, the Planning Commission may requestjo review the Final EIR or additional i n bef ng�, ore °rimalu a 'recommendation to the City Council.) Planning Commission consideration of Site Plan and Architectural Review PROJ ECT DESCIa9P The applicant has submitted an application for Site Plan "and Architectural Review for development of a commercial center to include approximately 344,000 square _feet of commercial land uses and associated parking and circulation on the existing 36.55 acres of undeveloped property. The - project is consistent with the existing.MU.1B mixed use zoning and General Plan 2025 land uses for the site and does not propose a subdivision map. 'More specifically, the development mix would include four major anchor retail stores five smaller shops, ; along with restaurant, pharmacy;, and grocery uses for a total of about 282,000 square feet of retail uses. The development would also - include a 44,450 square foot fitness facility and 17 square feet .of services, including;a bank and medical and professional offices. Access to the project would, be provided from North McDowell Boulevard, Rainier A'venue,.and Lynch Creek Way. Surface parking is provided on ;site, largely concentrated at the center of the site, with major tenant'spaces at. the rear of the site, and smaller commercial and office uses along North McDowell, A total, of 1,267 vehicular parking spaces are proposed and 150 bicycle parking spaces are proposed throughout the site, with bike parking located near each of the proposed buildings. Approximately :5.45 acres are proposed to be set aside at the intersection of Highway 101 and Rainier for' the - future Rainier. Avenue interchange project. That area is shown on plans with passive :recreational paths for interim use. An additional 2.66 acres along the Deer Creek swale Dee r Creek Village bEiR o9- sPC =oo91 Pa e,2 9 which runs east to west in, the northern portion of the, site is designated as a 50 foot development buffer on each side of the swale and proposed to be planted with native trees and shrubs designed to provide natural retention and.minimize the rate of storm water run -off. Five plazas are proposed as gathering places and.located throughout the site. Each of the plazas is proposed with a special paving, benches, seat walls, and landscaping. ANALYSIS Tiered ; EIR The Draft Environmental Impact Reporf�(DEIR): for the' Deer Creek Village Project is a second tier EIR and tiers off of the Program,EIR that was certified for the City of Petaluma General Plan 2025. Based upon the conclusions''in the Initial Study (included ih - .the Appendices); two environmental issue areas were found to includepotentially significant impacts: Air Quality /Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Transportation/Traffic. As such, the DEIR is limited to those impacts' identified for the project as potentally'significant environmental effects that were not examined,in. the previous EIR for the General Plan. Format: of the Draft EIR The analysis of the DEIR is broken into three primary, sections; including Environmental Impact Analysis, General Impact Categories, and Alternativeslo, the, Proposed.Project. The analysis for Air Quality /Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Transportation/Traff c as well as the discussion of Urban Decay, includes an overview of the existing conditions compared with incorporation of the project and applies thresholds of.. significance .based;on CEQA guidelines and other regulatory criteria to assess whether Or riot-the project will have an impact and, if so, the significance of that impact. The DEIR discusses levels of significance and possible and feasible mitigation measures to ensure "that the impact is reduced to a less- than- significant level. For those impacts that cannot be reduced to a less- than- significant level, a determination of significant and unavoidable is made. I Discussion of cumulative impacts: occurs in each of the analysis section, while discussion of alternatives is broken into its own section (DEIR Section VI).. Impacts and,Mitigation Measures The' DEIR, and' associated.1hitial Study identified several areas where the proposed project °would have -an environmental im pact. The impacts are defined as a substantial, or potentially substantial change in-any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project. Most of the , acts; identified; as potentially significant can be reduced to a less -than- signifi - ant level with the incorporation of various mitigation reasures. These mitigation measures have been identified iia.the DEIR and would be incorporated into the environmental determination and project approval and carried,out through a Mitigation.Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) and project. conditions of approval. 3 33 Impacts that are Significant and Unavoidable The DEIR has also identified potentially significant impacts on the environment that cannot be mitigated to a less- than- significant level. These.impacts would.cause,significant and unavoidable impacts'under Noise, Air Quality /Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Transportation/Traffic. (See Table II-1 Summary'of Significant Environmental impacts_ and Mitigation.Measures starting on page II -3 of the; document for a complete list of all impacts and proposed mitigation measures.) . Noise Impact.Noise -3: The evaluation of the project's contribution to cumulative effects relies on the evaluation of noise effects in-the EIR for'General Plan 2025, which determined that at General Plan buildout,. significant and unavoidable; impacts would result from traffic - related noise and future rail service. Imadopting the General Plan, the City, accepted these significant and unavoidable impacts by approving- a statement of overriding considerations. No feasible mitigation measures were identified that would reduce the proposed project's contribution to this cumulative city= wideJmpact to less than considerable, and thus this significant and unavoidable impact remains applicable 'to the proposed project. Air Quality Impact AQ -1 Construction related activities associated with the project would result in dust and equipment exhaust emissions that could at times, affect adjacent- residential uses including the single ;family residential homes to the northeast /east ofMcDowell Boulevard and/or the Petaluma Valley Hospital to the east on Professional Drive, and could contribute to deterioration of local`, air quality. Construction emissions for the proposed ; project were calculated with the URBENIIS2007 model asminingthe two.separate phases for construction. During grading, the first year of construction, average daily emissions would exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management'District (BAAQMD) thresholds. The City's General Plan 2025 includes a chapter containing air quality policies and programs that seek to maintain or improve Petaluma's air quality. After General Plan approval' and certification of the General, Plan EIR, which found certain cumulative air quality and GHG impacts to be significant and unavoidable, BAAQMD adoptednew CEQA Guidelines establishing ,thresholds of significance and providing ,a methodology for updating the General Plan air quality and greenhouse gas analysis -for this project. A mitigation measure outlining ways in which the project could reduce air pollutant emissions -from grading and construction, impact is discussed in,the DEIR. Mitigation Measure AQ -1 would reduce dust<of,PMlo emissions to a less- than- significant level. However NO emissions duringgrading,would remain above the BAAQMD threshold and therefore the impact remains significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure AO-I: The project sponsors shall require that the following practices be implemented by including them in the contractor construction documents: ® All exposed surfaces shall be watered two times per day or such to maintain minimum soil moisture of 12 percent. Deer Creek Village DEIR. 09 -SPC =0091 Page 4 3'`f All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off- -site shall be covered. ® All. visible mud or. dirt track out onto adjacent public roads.shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry.power sweeping shall be prohibited. ® All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limitedto 15 mph. © All roadways, driveways; and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be:laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. • Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. • Suspend construction activities that cause visible dust plumes to extend beyond the construction site. ® Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes. ® All :construction equipment shall be maintained and properly °tune d in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in property condition prior to operation. ® Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number'and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints: This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. ® During site grading the developer or contractor shall provide a plan for approval by the City or,BAAQMD demonstrating that the heavy -duty off -road vehicles to be used in the construction project, including owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles, will achieve a project wide fleet - average 20 percent,NO,, reduction and 45 percent particulate reduction compared to ;the most recent. CARB fleet average, for the year 2011. ® The contracioushall install temporary electrical service whenever possible to avoidthe need for powered equipment. O Property time and maintain equipment for low emissions. Impact,AQ -4: The project�would cause an increase in GHG emissions of 8,707 metric tons of CO2 annually, which exceeds the 2010 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines "bright dine" threshold of 1, 100 metric tons per year. Therefore the significance is evaluated by assessing the GHG emissions -of 115 metric tons per year of CO2 per capita which exceeds the BAAQMD significance threshold of 4.6 metric tons per, capita. Deer Creek Village DER Anticipated operational emissions for the project were calculated using URBEMIS2007 to provide CO emissions in metric tons per year. The calculation included missions from transportation, area- sources, electricity consumption, natural gas consumption, electricity usage associated with water usage and wastewater discharge, and solid waste land filling and transport. Mitigation.Measure AQ -4 outlines measures to reduce air pollutant emissions both from vehicle trips and area _sources. Although implementation of the following measures would reduce per capita CO Z e emissions to 13.0 metric tons per year, it remains' above the BAAQMD per capita significance threshold of 4.6 and therefore the impact remains significant and unavoidable.. Greenhouse gas emissions are by.nature cumulative impacts. The resulting impact determined by this; DEIR is the same level of - significance as determined inthe General Plan EIR for greenhouse gas emissions, but resulted from using the more specific:BAAQMD 2010' CEQA Guidelines methodology. Mitigation Measure AQ4.,The applicant.shall reduce air pollutant emissions from'both vehicle trips and area sources by implementing the following measures:' ® Provide preferential, parking near the office building entrance: for carpool and vanpool vehicles. ® Pedestrian facilities shall` nclude easy access and signage to bus stops and roadways that serve the major site'uses. ® - Project site employers shallbe required to promote transit use byproviding transit information and incentives to. employees. ® Provide electrical outlets to encourage use of electrical landscape equipment at retail.and office uses. • Prohibit idling'of trucks at.loading docks for °more than 5 minutes per State law and include signage indicating such a prohibition. • Provide; 110- and 220-volt electrical outlets at loading docks. • Provide battery: powered ,, electric, or other similar equipment that does not impact local air quality for; project activities. • Incorporate'passive solar building design and landscaping conducive to passive solar =ergyuse. ® During, °final :design, the !applicant shall develop GreenBuilding standards or equivalent that " , would , reduce energy - related GHG emissions'by at least 20 percent: from those would occur under 2005' Title,24 Building Code, requirements. • As required by the General Plan, the applicant shall incorporate features to reduce energy related GHG emissions including but not limited to pedestrian linkages, connections to local transit, bike lanes, bike parking, and showers for employees. • . In addition to providing trees for shading, provide drought tolerant landscaping to reduce: water usage that lead indirectly to electricity usage and GHG emissions. Transportation /Traffic Traffic conditions were measured for six scenarios: existing conditions (baseline), existing conditions plus project, existing conditions plus "pipeline" projects (those projects approved and not yet complete or with applications in the development; process), existing conditions plus pipeline plug project, cumulative conditions,:and cumulative conditions; plus project, which is the General ,Plan 2025 buildout scenario. Some baseline plus project or:baseline plus project plus pipeline impacts would be modified at General Plan buildout because of traffic improvements anticipated and relied on in the General. Plan EIR. Impact Traffic -2b: Intersection operations at East Washington Street and North McDowell 'Boulevard were found to exceed,tle threshold .of significance under existing plus project conditions. No feasible mitigation was identified to reduce the impact to less - than- significant. The impact:remains significant and unavoidable. ImpactTraffc 73b: Vehicle queuing at the' intersection of East Washington Street and North McDowell Boulevard in the southbound right =turii lane was found lo exceed the-thresholds of significance under existing plus project conditions. Although construction of additional lane storage length would reduce the project's contribution to significant impacts there is not available right- of- way underthe built out> scenario alongNorth McDowell Boulevard. Therefore, no feasible mitigation was identified and the impact to this intersection. remains significant and unavoidable. A.number ofatraffic impacts under the existing plus pipeline plus project conditions were identified as significant and unavoidable with no feasiblemitigation identified to reduce the impacts` to less- than- significant. The following five impacts are identified as significant and unavoidable. Impact Traffic -5a: Intersection operations at Corona Road and North McDowell Boulevard`` under existing plus pipeline plus project conditions result in a significant and unavoidable impact. Impact Traffic-5b: hitersection,operations at Corona Road. and Petaluma Boulevard North under existing plus pipelinerplus project conditions exceed thresholds of'significance and result in a significant land unavoidable impact. Impact Traffic -5d: Intersection operations at East Washington and North McDowell Boulevard exceed thresholds of significance °under existing plus pipeline plus project conditions and result in a significant and unavoidable. impact. Impact Traffic -6: Vehicle queuing at East Washington Street�and.North McDowell Boulevard, southbound rig ht- turn,lane would exceed storage capacity under existing plus pipeline plus,project:conditions. This impact remains significant and unavoidable with no feasible mitigation identified. hnpact'Traffic =7: The proposed project is expected to increase traffic volumes on Highway 101. segments (PepperRoad to Old Redwood Highway and from East Washington Street to Lakeville Highway) that are expected to operate at LOS F without the project by more than one percent of the segment's theoretical capacity. No feasible mitigation was identified to reduce the impact to less - than- significant and therefore the impact remains significant and unavoidable. Five additional traffic impacts were 'identified under cumulative plus project conditions. Feasible °mitigation was not identified and all five impacts are considered significant and. unavoidable. ImpacvTraffic -15b: Intersection operations at Rainier Avenue and North McDowell Boulevard. will exceed thresholds of significance under ° cumulative .plus,,projectconditions, resulting in a significant LOS impact. No feasible - mitigation was identified Impacts to this intersection remainsignificart and unavoidable. hnpact Traffic -I 5ce Intersection operations at Rainier Avenue and project access would result in delay to right -turn egress movements from the proposed project. No vehicle delays on Rainier Avenue under the cumulative project scenario are anticipated. The construction of the Rainier Avenue cross-town connector and'US. 101 and Rainier Avenue Interchange will limit access along the project frontage and therefore* a traffic signal is not feasible mitigation for the impact. Access`shall`be- ,limited to right -turn in and, right -turn out when Rainier is extended (mitigation measure Traffic -.8b). hnpacts' to the intersection remain significant and unavoidable. Impact.Traffic45e: Intersection operations at Corona Road and North McDowell Boulevard are anticipated to continue to exceed thresholds of significance. under the cumulative plus project conditions. Construction of additional travel lanes at this intersection conflict with the General Plan policy to avoid wider, more automobile - oriented iritersectiors in favor of more pedestrian, bicycle,, and transit -frieindly designs. A statement of overriding considerations was adopted by the City for this intersection for the cumulative condition as part of the.General Plan EIR certification. Impacts to -th intersection remain significant and unavoidable. Impact Traffic4 6: As described above under existing plus project conditions, vehicle queuing at the intersection: of East Washington Street: and North McDowell Boulevard (southbound right turn lane) exceeds ahresholds of significance and remains significant and unavoidable under cumulative plus project conditions. Impact Traffic -17 Northbound U.S. 10.1 at previously discussed segments (Pepper to Old Redwood Highway and East Washington to Lakeville Highway), will continue to operate at LOS F'with volumes in excess; of-10 percent .of the operating capacity. No feasible mitigation measures were identified and therefore the impact would be significant unavoidable under cumulative conditions. Deer Creek Village DEIR 09- sn-oogi Page 8 L�� I` Overriding Considerations CEQA Section 15091 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. Wherepotential 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 "tle project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, then those environmental effects;maybe considered "acceptable ". In order to approve a project. that will result in significant adverse environmental effects identified in.the EIR that cannot be reduced to a level of less "than significant, the Lead Agency must state in writing the specific reasons to support the project_ approval 'based on the Final EIR and/or,other information in the record. This is formally known as a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" and is made in4ddition to the findings required under CEQA Section 15091. 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. Analysis of Alternatives The DEIR evaluated three alternatives:'Tle "No Project" alternative, the "Reduced Project" and the "Commercial and Residential Care.Project" alternative and compared the environmental effects ;that might be associated`with these hypothetical - alternatives with those associated with the proposed project. The Alternatives discussion begins on page VI -1 of the DEIR. Under;the "No Project" alternative, which is required by CEQA, the proposed project would not be con structed and the site would remain in its existing undeveloped condition. Undefilie . "Reduced Project Alternative" the project would include a reduced amount of retail development. This alternative was developed to reduce the potential traffic 'impacts by 25 . percent, accomplished by reducing the number of new trips during the weekday p.m. peak hour by -25 percent. This alternative, has the same square footage for the prop,osed;major retail anchor and offices as the proposed project, but the total additional retail, restaurant, and fitness. facility uses have been reduced by approximately 50 percent: The total project square footage`under this alternative would be reduced approximately 25.4 percent, from 343,998 to 256,498 square feet. As a result.of the reduced" square footage, this alternative includes additional green spaces near the Deer Creek buffer North McDowell Boulevard, and around the proposed restaurants and shops. 'The proposed location of the major retail anchor would shift to the north slightly, creating a larger, buffer between the major retail anchor, and nearby office uses to the south. The "Commercial and Residential Care Project Alternative" was designed to include a combination of retail/office and residential uses. The focus-on residential care was based on limited.residential types allowed under current MUIR zoning of the site. This alternative maintains the square footage major retail anchor.. Remaining,retail anchors (Majors, 2;3. and 4 totaling `69;000 square feet) would be replaced with a 50 -bed residential care facility for the elderly. The residential care facility for the elderly would be .located near the proposed iriedieal offices at the.southeastem—edge of the- project.site, than 500. feet east of Highway 101. The location of the major retail anchor would be shifted to. the north to create a larger buffer between the major retail anchor and nearby office uses -to the south and a greater distance from the residential care facility. Based; on the evaluation in the D.EIR,Ahe "No Project" alternative would'be regarded as the environmentally superior alternative' because only the "No Project" alternative results in eliminating any significant effects�oftheproposed project as outlined.in'Table VI - on Page VI- 16 of the DEIR. However, CEQA requires that if the "No Project" alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, then the E1R must also designate the next:most environmentally preferable alternative. The "Commercial and-Residential. Care Project Alternative" would lie the environmentally superior alternative. However, this alternative would not eliminate any significant impacts of the project. Urban Decay Comments received during the scoping phase of the DEIR raised concerns that development of Deer Creels Village,. including a large home improvement center„ would xesult ,in urban decay. An analysis of potential urban decay was prepared by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. in September 2010 . (Appendix :C): and for CEQA purposes included analysis of the individual and cumulative effects of the,proposed.project on the performance of Petaluma's retail sector and potential indirect adverse physical effects caused by those effects. It is irriportant to note that the CEQA purpose of the Urban Decay, study was to determine whether the proposed project would result in significant, adverse physical' impacts from urban decay, not whether or not -there would be retail competition as a result of the development of Deer Creek Village. The EPS study found that the_cuinulative impact of Deer Creek Village, excluding Regency, was not likely to overwhelm the market or create conditions conducive to urban :decay and the impacts were.:considered.less than significant. Further, the study' found_ that the cumulative impactof the#oposed project with Regency`would:likely result in temporary conditions conducive to urban decay based. on anticipated - figures that exceed the ,general thre of 10 percent retail capture., However,, as included, in the DEIR analysis, there are a number of other factors -that lessen,the this potential, including :Rexible zoning regulations property management requirements, comparatively high real estate values, and proactive economic development. The fact that °potential impacts are temporary and - relatively :short°term, that physical decay or blight takes years to materialize and that there arenumerous;conditions, regulations, and incentives in place to minimize physical deterioration related to retail vacancies, combine to reduce the physical impact from potential urban decay and/or blight to less than significant. PUBLIC ; COMM ENTS I A Notice of Availability of 'a DEIR and Public Hearing was published in the Argus Courier 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, and all individuals who commented on the Notice of Preparation. Notification °was also filed with the State Clearinghouse and the Sonoma County Clerk. Copies: of the DEIR and associated Appendices have been made available at the Petaluma Library the Community Center, City Hall, and on the City'svebsite. Additionally, copies of the documents'have been made available for purchase by the public for the cost of printing and Written comments received prior to the distribution of the staff report are attached. Due to the level of interest in this project, staff expects'there will also be written correspondence submitted at the March 22nd Planning °Commission meeting. E�@VIRONNiEf�'TAL °;REV�Ed11 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 to responsible and/or trustee state agencies. After receiving the NOP, these agencies had 30 days in which to comment.onhow,, in terms of scope and content, the DEIR should treat environmental information related to the agency's, statutory responsibilities. Office a DEIR is, prepared, it must be routed through the State Clearinghouse to all responsible and/or °trustee agencies. The agencies have 45 calendar -days in which to comment on the DEIR... At the same time the. DEIR is sent to the State Clearinghouse, Ili. . P public must be notified that the DEIR;is available. for review. A- notice was published in.the Argus Courier on March P and sent to "re "silents aril property,owners :within 1;000 feet of the subject property, as well as.interested parties, individuals who :commented in response to the NOP, and the Sonoma County Clerk. The purpose of the March 22nd- hearing is to receive public input on the adequacy and completeness of the analysis presented in the DEIR. As previously stated, the City's Environmental Guidelines also require a public hearing on the DEIR before the City Council. Once the City'Council public hearing on the Draft EIR has been formally closed, all written and verbal comments received .on the draft: will be compiled, and. responses to those comments will be y' n Guidelines, the Planning Commission may reque presented to ev review the FEIR before making a recommendation to the City Council, but Planning Commission review of the FEIR is not required by state law. Deer Creek Villacie DER 09 =SPC -0091 Page 11 a RECOMMENDATION Staff "is recommending that: the Plamu provide comment and take public testimony regarding the'DEIR for. the Deer Creek. Village project. Once the Planning Commission has completed its review, ,staff will'' forward any yPlann ng Commission, questions or comments to the City .Council Tor'their consideration during the Council's' public hearing on the DEM,,,scheduled for April 18, 20:1.1. ATTAdHPAENrTS Attachment A: DEIR and.Appendices (hand delivered on March 3, 2011) Attachment Be Public comments on DEIR :12 Hines, Heather From: Janice Cader - Thompson Oanicecader @gmaikcom] Sent:' Monday, March 14,20114!05 PM To: Hines, Heather; Brown, John Cc: Teresa Barrett, daveglass Subject: Re: Deer Creek Dear Heather, When is the first -hearing at -the planning commission and city- council for the Deec Creek'DEIR. If the first meeting is scheduled on Monday Apr,i"18th that is the first night of Passover. Please respond to my concern. Also, the impacts are wide and the 1000 foot notice is not responsible. Thanks Janice Cader- Thompson, RDH From: "Hines, Heather" < HHINES @ci.petaluma.ca.us Date: Tue, 1 Mar 201108:50:27 -0800 To: Janice Cader - Thompson John Brown < ibrown @ci.petaluma.ca.us Subject: RE: Deer Creek Goodmorning Janice, Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR. for Deer Creek will be going out today or tomorrow to notify of the 45 day public comment period that begins on Thursday, March 3 ". Notices are being sent to all property owners within a 1,000 foot radius of the project site as well as individuals who have requested notification for the project or submitted comment in response to the Notice of Preparation of the EIR. Please let me know if 1 can answer any additional questions. Heather HEATHER HINES Deputy Planning Manager T: 707.778.4316 E. hhines(d)ci_petaluma.ca.us City of Petaluma Community Development- Planning Division 11 English. St Petaluma, CA 94952 For faster response to planning and zoning questions, please e-mail us at petalumaplanning @ci:petaluma.ca.us From: Janice Cader- Thompson [ mailto:janicecader @gmail.com Sent: Tuesday;. March 01, 20117;09 AM To: Hines, Heather; Brown, John Cc: daveglass Subject: RE: Deer Creek 3 ;�i3 Dear Heather, The Park Place neighborhood has not been notified that the'Draft Elie for Deer Creek is coming out this week. When can we expect the city to do a mailer to the entire Park Place area. Sincerely, Janice Cader - Thompson; RDH Former Petaluma Councilmember Janice Cadeer- Thompson, RDH 732 Carlsbad Court Petaluma, : CA 94954 707 762 -7279 707 478- 5889 2 Hines, Heather From: Jensen,, Deanna on behalf ' ,of CDD Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 2:45 PM To: Hines, Heather; Bradley, Geoff Subject: FW: Deer Creek Project .From: Edmund Molinari [mailto:stmoiinOri@sbcglobal;het] Sent: Monday, March 14, 20112:26 PM To: CDD Subject: Deer Creek Project It's time for the City of Petaluma to move forward. Petaluma does not havei a lumber yard. The city loses a lot of sates tax whenj and other Petaluma citizens have to go to Cotati or Rohnert. Park to purchase what we need around the house. It's time for some the council members stop . twung about their personal agenda and start thinlcing aboui, , the needs the Petaluma!!!! I 1 3 -15 �| � � Hines, Heather From: Jensen beh lfofCOD Sent To: Hines, Heather Bradley, Geoff � ----�Originat Message----- From: Danid0nd Janet Watts [mailtmzwat-tsd@sbc8lubal.net] Sent: Saturdby, March 12,' 2011 l0|14 AM To: [DD� ~ Subject: [rrek Village DEIp ' WE NEED THI5 IN PETALUMA, `LET'S GET MOVING ONGETTING NEW BUSINESSES IN PETALUMA. ' David and Ja,net Watts 1169 River .Pine Circle 94954 (707) 775-4737 ~ � / ! |[ . | � .� .� !! ! .. / 1 Hines, Heather From: paul.frandis [petalumaneighbors @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday March 14, 2011 2 :01 AM . To: Hines, Heather Subject: Deer Creek DEIR missing link on City's website Hi Heather, Hope you are well. I noticed ,that the "Appendix E. Geotechnic link of the Appendices section of the Deer Creek DEIR, is not working on the city website. L'm not sure if it is just a glitch on the city's end or if that section is located in another place on the site. Consequent -ly, I request that the timeline for the public comment period be extended to allow adequate time for the aforementioned report to be accessed and reviewed. Thank you.. Sincerely,, Paul Francis Petaluma Neighborhood Association: www. petaliimaneighborhoodassociation .org a 3-17; Hines, ,Heather From: Jensen, Deanna on behalf of CDD Sent: Thursday; "March 1'0, 2011; 6:51 AM To Hines ,'Heather; Bradley; Geoff Subject: FW: Deer Creek Village DER From weavercl 3 @:comcast.net [niailto WeaVerch3 @comcast -net] Sent: Wednesday March 09, 20115 PM To: CDD Subject: DeerfCreek Village DEIR Dear Petaluma City Counsel, I am a Petaluma resident in'full'favmof a. Lowe's. in our c'ify. I spend too much time and money out of town, giving the tax revenues and jobs to others instead of to my local - cornmunity,. I have`to travel through our town in order to get to Lowe's in Cotati, creating more traffic and pollution than if I could just drive a- -couple of streets over in order to get to Lowe's Petaluma. I encourage you to approve this measure quicklyso'we can all'enjoyth'e benefits. Sincerely, Charles Weaver 392 Sparrow Lane Petaluma, CA 94954 _ 707-658-1117. i l . Hines, Heather From: Jensen, Deanna on behalf of CDD Sent: Vednesday, March 09, 2011 3 :58 PM To: Bradley, Geoff; Hines, Heather Subject: FW: Deer Creek Village, DER From: Jeanne McConnell [mailto:jeanne @bjmco.net] Sent:- Wednesday, March 09, 20113:29 N To: CDD Subject: Deer Creek Village, DEIR Deer Creek Village is a premiere project thatwill create hundreds of new jobs and generate much needed sales tax revenue forthe city. Please pass the project. Over 800 quality jobs. Will help generate sales taxes for City services by encouraging consumers to shop locally. Approximately $407,0'00 annually in new sales tax;revenue,:for public services such as police and fire protection, and road improvements. Funds to help the City, balance its budget deficit. Millions of dollars in development fees for l'ocal`neighborhorhood improvements Jeanne McConnell Phone 707 - 769 -0953 Fax 707 -769 -8794 3�i� Hines, Heather From: Jensen, Deanna on behalf of CDD Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 2:49 PM To: Bradley, Geoff; Hines, Heather Subject: FW: deer creek loves From:, reman58767 @aol.cbrh [mailto:reman58767 @aol.com1 Sent: Wednesday, March 09; 2011 1:21 PM To: CDD Subject: deer creek lowes Yes ... thank you l ,i 1 Hines, Heather From: Jensen,, Deanna on behalfof CDD Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 2:49 PM To: Bradley, Geoff; Hines, Heather Subject: FW: Deer Creek Village DER From: l.vicino [mailto :l.vicino @corncast net] Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 20112:27 PM To: CDD Subject: Deer Creek Village DER - Honorable City Councilmembers: I am writing to you to encourage the development of the Deer Creek Village Project. We need such a development to bring revenue and jobs into our , .community. The City Council,:for-some unknown reason, drags their feet inbringing into our community new'developments and more revenue so that not only would it help with jobs in the City Hall but jobg``m the new developments. i So many of our citizens are losing.jobs and along with that their homes. Our country need's to bring jobs back to its citizens.With the jobs, it will bring revenue to the City and to theState. It will also bring back self- ..esteem back to many who have lost their jobs. I am a senior citizen and I hope you hurry to put in these projects so they will be beneficial tome, as the day will come when I can no longer drive. Another reason to speed these developments up is that everybody goes-to Rohnert Park and Novato to spend their dollars, dollars that Petaluma could be getting'. Please allow Deer,Creek Village to get their develpment.in SOON. Louise Vicino i f Petaluma homeowner 'i 1 Hines, Heather From: Jensen, Deanna on behalf of CDD Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 12:56 PM To: Bradley, Geoff; Nines, Heather Subject: FW:'Deer Creek Village DEIR - Original ,Me'ssage ----- From: Pardini;, Anna -Maria (Segment Marketing Manager, HP Mac - connect & Mobile Apps GT.M) [ mailto :annamaria_pardini @hp.comI Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 201112:53 PM To: CDD Cc: daveglasl @comcast.net; sino08l9.60 @yahoo.com Subject: Deer Creek Village DEIR Hello All; i; I like to think of Petaluma as an eco- conscious, business savvy,. quality of life focused town. I know that what I write will offend small business owners, but I hope the business savyI owners will realize fhat:I.'m giving solid advice for survival and even growth in an increa's'ingly competitive economy because I want to see our downtown thrive. I think having a Lowe's will support all three concepts — eco = conscious, business savvy and quality of life; 1. Eco- corscious: I.don't feel very eco - conscious when I am driving a giant borrowed truck or van or even my little Subaru all the way to Rohne,rt Park for building supplies.. I'm wasting gas ;!which has so many negative implications on the environment,. polluting air, adding to tH6 already formidable traffic, wasting my irreplaceable time (better spent at a downtown restaurant) and putting'wear and tear on the roads and my vehicle. One could argue that I should walk to the downtown hardware store ... But I'd counter: I do just that when I need one oritwo hand carry items, but if I have to start my vehicle, I'm: going to keep going to a place where I can actually afford to shop. 2. Busines savvy: We.are gifting tax dollars to Rohnert Park — Rohnert Parkll Not just because we want to'save a buck, either ... we love and-try to support our "l:ocal businesses as much as we can, but everyone in Petaluma is not rich or retired or can afford the luxury of a professional homemaker. Many of us .can't 'escape work mid -day to,:accommodate the hours our local businesses have the privilege of enjoying and some of us need to use a charge card:. If local businesses are worried about losing customers to big box retailers,, they could be 'a l "ittle, more customer centric in their hours, forms of payment and pricing for local residents. Differentiation and customer service is why a one woman $9 haircut place and Dukes and Dolls can both find success in the same small town. 3. Quality of life.: Less wasted tim_e,.le.ss stressful driving, more tax dollars to improve our town and'more change in my pocket to patronize our local high -'end hair salons, gift shops, restaurants, bakeries, boutiques, etc., Annamaria PS: Two . true Petaluma hardware store and: on e stock,, but on order. them call me3;when the to pick them up. Both i experiences that illustrate point #2: -In the last six months, at one comfort shoe shop.downtown, I wanted'to buy items that were not in At each store, I was willing to,pay for these items in advance and have items arrived,. Yes give money in advance,, wait for arrival and return said they didn't do business like that, but I was free to come back i it i , frequently or call them-to see if the items were in stock. I called the hardware store several times ... Then I gave up. I didn?t,have to jump in my car .for Rohnert Park or . Novato, I ordered both items at about , a 30% savings from Internet retailers from the comfort of my home and had them delivered to 'my front door. I'd have gladly paid the additional 30% mark -up. to support the local businesses, but I didn't have the time to assist them in their inventory management and customer service departments. Hines, Heather From: Jensen ,'Deanna on behalf -of CDD Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 6:47 AM To Bradley Geoff; Hines, Heather Subject: FW! defer creek village From: gerry_brady [rnallto:bradygf @cc-mcast.net1 Sent: Sunday, . �Aarch 06, 20117:4.0 AM I I To: CDD ii Subject: deerdreek village .Dear City C6cjntil: 'I bought a home in Petaluma 13 years ago and I am just stunned at the City's inability to move forward with `'rojects that will not only' benefit the, City coffers, but citizens who need jobs and decent p placeslo shop. FYI: I. don't do any of my shopping'in Petaluma, with the exception of food purchases sometimes. Petaluma desperately:needs, new tax revenue, so letvs get on with this. project! Please build Deer Creek Village and hurry up. about, it. gerry brady 1921 cross creek street 707.'363.0240 cell I