HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 7.A 04/19/2004CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
A GW ND A. R11,1
Agenda Title Consideration and possible action on a
. Meeting Date: April 19, 2004
recommendation from the Planning Commission regarding:.
A) A Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for
proposed development of Parcels B and C of the former
Meeting Time ❑ 3:00 PM
River Oaks /Petaluma Factory Outlet Village.
X 7:00 PM
B) A modification to the River Oaks/Petaluma Factory Outlet
Village Master Plan. to allow development of Parcels B and
C as proposed in the Petaluma Village Marketplace Planned
Community District General Development Plan.
Location: 2200 Petaluma Boulevard North. [APNs 048 - 080 -039,,
007 -401 -043, 007 7401 -044 (Parcel A); 007 - 391 -009 (Parcel B);
048 - 080 -038 (Parcel C); 048- 080 -033, 007 -391 -035 (Abandoned
Railroad right -of- way)]. Project File No. REZ02001
Category (check onel ❑ .Consent Calendar X Public Hearing El New Business
❑ Unfinished Business ❑' Presentation
Department
- Director :
Contact Person:
Phone Number 778 -4301
Community
Development
Michael C ° o
etsi Lewitter,;I
Project Planner
Cost of Proposal N/A
Account Number N/A
Amount. Budgeted N/A
Name of Fund: N/A
Attachments to Agenda - Packet Item
1. Recommended Conditions,of Approval
2. December 10, 2002, Planning Commission staff report (without `attachments)
3. April 22, 2003, Planning Commission staff reports (without attachments)
4. October 24, 2003 memo to the Planning Commission outlining 'the'agreements reached between the
City Manager and the applicants.
5. December 2, 2003 memo to the Planning Commission including the Commissioners' concerns and
Chelsea's responses (without attachments)
6. Minutes from Planning, Commission meetings of April 22, 2003 and December 9, 2003. (Note: A
complete record of the staff reports and minutes_ are available 'in the Community Development
Department files.
7. January 7, 2004, comments from Petaluma Trolley representatives.
8. Correspondence
9. Constraints map for Parcel B,
10. City Council Resolution 91 -136 Approving the original PCD Master Plan Program for the River
Oaks /Petaluma Factory °Outlet Village Project (for reference).
11. Petaluma Village, Marketplace Planned Community District General Development Plan.
12. Full -size conceptual plan (City Council only).
11 Subsequent Environmental Impact Report consisting of two volumes: Draft SEIR and Final SEIR
. (City Council only).
Su "m'mary 'Statement Public Hearing and consideration of recommendations from the Planning
Coflirnission on the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) and proposed modification to
the River Oaks/Petaluma Factory Outlet Village Master Plan to allow development on Parcels B and C as
proposed in the Petaluma Village Marketplace Planned Community District General Development Plan.
The applicants are proposing to develop Parcel C, which comprises. 16_3 acres to the north of the existin
Petaluma Village Premium Outlets, with a 10 to 12 screen movie theater, a 36,000 square foot retai
building and 527 parking spaces. Additional commercial space may be substituted for the proposed movie
theater. Parcel B, consisting of almost 23. acres to the south of the existing Petaluma 'Village Premium
Outlets; would be developed with up to 163,000 square feet of retail. space and 775 parking spaces. A new
access road (Village Drive) is proposed from Petaluma Boulevard North into Parcel B. The project also
includes landscaping and the continuation of the existing Riverwalk trail along the Petaluma River.
Recommended City Council Action /.Suggested Motion
1. Hear presentations by staff and applicant.
2. Open public hearing for comments on FSEIR and project merits.
3. If necessary, continue the Public Hearing to a date specific for additional public input or Council
deliberations. Otherwise, direct staff as to appropriate future actions, including legislation.
Reviewed by Finance Director:
Reviewed by City Attorney
Date:
A rov 'b. , Cit :Man er:
Date:
Date:
Today's.Date
R evision # and. Date Revised:
File Code:
##
April 8, 20:04
•
•
2
.it -;
CITY OF PET'ALUMA, CALIFORNIA
APRIL 5 2.004
AGENDA R ORT
FOR
PETALUMA VILLAGE MARKETPLACE — MODIFICATION OF RIVER
OAKS /PETALUMA FACTORY OUTLET VILLAGE MASTER PLAN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The applicants are requesting approval of a modification -to the approved River Oaks /Petaluma
Factory Outlet Vill'age'Plannedt6immunity District (PCD) Master Plan to allow development of
the parcels north and south of the existing 25 acre Petaluma Village Premium Factory Outlet
(Parcel A). The proposal includes 'development of Parcel B, the approximately 23 acre southern
parcel, with up to 163,000 square feet of retail space' and 775 parking spaces. Parcel C, which
comprises approximately 146 acres to the north of the existing Outlet Village, would be developed
with up to 81,000 square feet of building floor area. The applicants still. desire to develop a 10 to
12 screen movie theater on Parcel C as well as a `36;000 square foot retail building and 445
parking spaces. However; a movie theater is currently under construction downtown, and,
therefore under the Downtown Theater Ordinance, a theater would be prohibited on this parcel.
The applicants have 'indicated they would substitute the proposed theater with additional
commercial uses consistent with the PCD. Master Plan. A new access road (Village Drive) is
proposed from Petaluma Boulevard North into Parcel B. The project also includes landscaping
and the continuation of the existing Riverwalk trail along the Petaluma River. The River
Oaks/Petaluma Factory Outlet Village Planned Community District Master Plan applies to parcel
A; the Petaluma Village Marketplace Planned.. Community District General Development
Guidelines will apply to Parcels B and C.
On April 22, 2003, the Planning Commission voted to recornrriend that the City Council certify
the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR); this decision was upheld when the
Commission voted against. "reconsideration of the 'recommendation on May 27, 2003. On
December 9, 2003, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the PCD
modification subject to conditions of approval (Attachment' 1).
2. BACKGROUND
In 1991, the entire 72.47 -acre project site was zoned "Planned Community District, Floodplain
Combining and Floodway (P -C, PF -C and FW), and a Planned Community District (PCD)
Master Plan Program was approved, subject to 55..conditioris of approval. With the zoning of the
entire 72+ acres to a P -C District, it was determined that some kind of commercial development
would occur at this location. The site was divided 'into three parcels for planning purposes. Parcel
C consists of 16.3 + /= acres, and is; the most northern parcel; Parcel A is approximately 25 acres
and was subsequently developed as the Petaluma Village Premium Outlets. Parcel B is to the
• south of the Outlets and is approximately 23 acres in size. The applicants are now proposing to
develop Parcels Rand C.
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified as adequate for the original project. The
original EIR contemplated the development of retail, restaurants, hotel /motel and related
services, offices and financal„nstitutions on the 72 +/- site. The PCD Master _Plan Program •
provided details regarding the .proposed retail factory outlet stores on Parcel A. However, uses
for Parcels. B and C were not specifically known, and, therefore, could not be analyzed
thoroughly: Condition of .approval 51 required environmental analysis in conjunction with any
application: for development of Parcels B and C. This condition also required that development
proposed, for Parcels B and C be subject to the PCD modification requirements as set forth in the
Zoning Ordinance.
A -Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report ( DSEIR) was prepared by Lamphier - Gregory
and released -for public comments in November 2002. Although a Subsequent EIIZ, is a complete
EIR, ;it focuses ; mainly on new information and substantial changes to a project .and,. therefore
does not revisit many of the topics addressed in the original EIR for ,a project. The DSEIR.
identified several potential environmental impacts associated with development of the project
that would be: significant and unavoidable. These impacts included unacceptable levels of service
at the Petaluma Boulevard North/Washington Street intersection and on segments of Old
Redwood Highway. Mitigation measures were proposed to reduce the; 'impacts to, a less, than
significant level. However, the mitigation measures require extensive improvements to
intersections, the provision of a new east/west connection and freeway interchange and Council
adoption of.a policy exempting key downtown intersections from General Plan. Level..of Service
thresholds. Until such time as the improvements are completed and the language in the General
Plan modified, the impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. In addition, new traffi c
generated by the project would affect air quality by increasing regional emissions by amounts
greater than Bay Area Air. Quality Management District (BAAQMD) signif cance thresholds.
Mitigation measures would reduce the amount of emissions, but the remaining amount would
still exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds. More detailed information regarding impacts
that. would remain. significant after the incorporation of mitigation ,measures is contained .in the
SEIR and; summarized in the December 10, 2002, Planning Commission staff report included as
Attachment 2.
The Planning Commission held 'public hearings on the DS`EIR on January 14, January 28 and
February 3, 2003. The Commission reviewed the Final Subsequent EIR ( FSEIR) on April 22,
2003 at which time .they voted .5-1. to recommend certification to the City Council. This decision .
was upheld on May 27, •20:03, when the Commission voted against reconsideration of their
recommendation. The Commission then considered project details at their meetings of May 27,
June 10 July 22,. October 28 and December 9, 2003. (The April 22, 2003, Planning Commission
staff reports .for both the FSEIR and the project are included as Attachment 3). At the meeting of
July 2 -2, the Planning Commissioners expressed frustration regarding the Chelsea Group's lack
of response to .Commission and citizen comments relating to the conceptual site plan and asked
the City 'Manager to negotiate with .the applicants to' address specific issues. A memo to the'
Planning Commission dated. October 24', 2003, outlines the agreements reached between the City
Manager and the applicants (Attachment 4). At the meeting of October 28;,2003, the Planning
Commission reviewed the agreements, but still had concerns regarding the overabundance of
parking and hardscape possible configurations and sizes of buildings on Parcel B. conformance•
with the 'Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan setbacks and circulation within the
project. A memo, to the Planning Commission dated December 2, 2003, includes the
Commissioners' concerns and Chelsea's responses (Attachment 5). After taking additional
4
public input „and ;lengthy Commission discussion, The Planning Commission voted 4 -2 to
recommend to the CityCouncil approval of the PCD amendment subject to amended conditions.
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicants have revised the Petaluma Village Marketplace Planned Community District
General Development Plan to allow d'evel'opment on Parcels B and. C as follows:
Parcel B
Up to 163,000 gross square. feet of commercial retail uses would be constructed. The
development, including parking, would maintain an average setback of 150' from the top of
riverbank, as required in this, section of the river by the Petaluma River Access and Enhancement
Plan. The average was obtained by using a 200' setback on the proposed undeveloped portion of
Parcel B. The applicant's rationale ;for using this 200 -foot setback is that the River Enhancement
Plan indicates an average setback of 150' and a minimum of 100', which implies that the
maximum is 200'. The setback from both Capri and Deer Creeks to project parking is proposed
to be no less than 50' as required by the River Enhancement Plan.
The applicants. are proposing a parking ratio of 5 spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross
building area fora total of 851 stalls. However, a ratio of only 4.75- :1;000 parking spaces will be
placed on parcel B-, the remaining spaces (approximately 40) will be transferred to Parcel C. The
PCD Development Plan states that up to 30 percent of the parking spaces will be compact, which
is consistent with the City's Parking Design Standards. The agreement with the City Manager
• allowed 5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet, but stated that anything over a 4:1,000 ratio
would be compact. The applicant's proposal results in more compact spaces, providing a greater
reduction in hardscape. The City's standard for retail stores is 1 space per 300 square feet
(3.3:1,000); for furniture, appliance and household equipment stores, the City's standard is 1
space per 400. square feet of sales floor area (2:5:1..,000).
Access to Parcel B from Petaluma Boulevard North will be provided via Village Drive. Village
Drive will pass through a separation between the buildings on Parcel B and continue behind the
buildings to provide . a connection between Parcels. B and A. The separation between the
buildings will allow a view .corridor from Highway 101 to the river.
Parcel C
A maximum of 81,000 square feet of building floor area is proposed for Parcel C. At this time
the applicants are still proposing a 45,000 square foot theater and 36;0.00 of retail space.
However, a theater is currently being developed downtown per the Downtown Theater
Ordinance; this will require the applicants to substitute the theater on Parcel C with additional
commercial uses consistent with the PCD Master Plan. A minimum 100' setback would be
maintained between the parking area and the river. The setback from Corona Creek would be
50'.
The parking ratio for Parcel ,Q Js also proposed to be 5:1,000 square feet of gross building area.
This, combined with the, 40 parking spaces transferred from Parcel B, "results in a total of 445
parking spaces on Parcel C.
•
5
The allowable uses .for'both Parcels B and C are listed. in the PCD General Development Plan on
page, 10. It is important to note that. the, actual placement and design of the buildings will be
subject to Site Plan ;and Architectural Review (SPARC) approval. The final design, submitted. to
SPARC will need to reflect the regulations in the General Development Plan. All drawings at
this time are conceptual, and that they depict only one possible development scenario. In order to
avoid confusion both now and in the future when development plans will need to be found
consistent with the PCD General Development Plan, staff recommended to the applicant that the
conceptual plans be removed from the PCD General Development Plan and provided separately
for the Council's review.
4. PLANNING Commiss1oN REVIEW:
As previously stated,, thez Planning. Commission recommended certifeation of the Subsequent
ElR on April 22, 2003. The Commission concluded their review of the project at their December
9, 2003 meeting and recommended approval, with conditions and/or requests as follows:
a. Performance standards and monitoring to ensure the success of the mitigation
wetlands.
b. Total parking ratio not .to exceed :4.5:,1,000 for Parcels B and C; 40 of the allowed
spaces for Parcel B shall be .moved to Parcel C.
C. The PCD General Development Plan should be consistent internally and include
applicable .aspects of the agreement reached with the City Manager; change reference
to Wal -Mart to bemore generic, e;g. "di "scount department stores. ".
d. No runoff should be allowed to go into inlets that drain directly into the creeks or
river. •
e. There should be mitigation. forl merchants' loss of downtown parking spaces if traffic
mitigation measures to increase. levels of service at intersections, are 'imposed.
f. A: conservation easement should, be recorded to preserve the triangular portion, of
Parcel B south of Deer Creek. The conservation easement should provide use limits,.
but not be so restrictive that it excludes the trolley. The Planning Commission,
requested the opportunity °to review the conservation easement prior to recordation.
g. The Riverwalk should extend up the north side of Deer Creek, cross at the existing
bridge location, down, the south side of Deer Creek and then along the River to the
southern property line. Public ,access shall then continue up the railroad right -of -way
to connect to the bridge crossing (around entire triangle section of Parcel B).
h. Staff should' explore with the City Attorney indemnif cation language to hold the City
harmless for any damage to stores within the`Petaluma Village Marketplace, homes in
the City of Petaluma, or properties in the downtown area if the hydrology report is
inaccurate and flooding occurs.
i. Staff should meet with the Petaluma Trolley representatives to ensure their concerns
are addressed.
j. Staff`should -review the' project in light of the Retail Leakage and Strategy Study.
k. The applicant ° should be prepared to identify the expected major tenants at the City
Council - meeting.
1. SPARC review .should include emphasis on the following . comments fro_ m the
Planning Commission:
0
1. View corridors: A maximum 125 -f6ot wide visibility corridor should occur
between the buildings on Parcel B. ''The > visibility corridor should contain public
• amenities and landscape. No parking is` to be placed in the visibility corridor.
Another visibility corridor should occur between the buildings on Parcel C with
public amenities similar to those in the visibility corridor on Parcel B.
2. Parcel B: Provide connectivity between buildings to avoid isolation of the
southern building and difficulty of navigating between one building and another.
3. Circulation: Design elements, including signage, should be incorporated to
ensure people do not have to get into their cars to go from one parcel to another
especially to avoid people going out Village Drive onto Petaluma Boulevard
North and then reentering through Factory Outlet Drive. Provide better transition
from Parcel B to Parcel A — avoid sharp turn onto access road behind buildings.
Items a through h have either been incorporated into the PCD Development Plan or staff has
added them as conditions of °approval. With the exception of the conservation easement and the
number of compact parking spaces, the agreements reached between the applicant and the City
Manager have been addressed in the document; therefore, if the Council desires, recommended
condition of approval 12 could be deleted. Although the agreement with the City Manager called
for a parking ratio of 5 spaces per .1,000 square feet of gross building area, the Planning
Commission requested a ratio of 4.5:1.;000. The `Planning Commission's requested ratio is
included as recommended condition of approval No. 9:
The applicant's proposal" includes the Riverwalk along the north side, of Deer Creek on Parcel B,
but instead of going back down the south side of Deer Creek and then along the river as
requested by the Planning. Commission, the applicants are still proposing that the Riverwalk
continue along the railroad right- of:wayto the southern -most point ofthe parcel. The applicants
believe that this path alignment will avoid environmentally sensitive areas and discourage
pedestrians from: crossing the'creek. If the Council.finds;this acceptable, recommended condition
of approval 1 I could also be-deleted.
The City Attorney was consulted 'regarding the Commission's request for indemnification
against any losses due to flooding if the hydrology report for the SEIR is inaccurate. Mr.
Rudnansky noted that the contract between the SEIR consultant, who retained the hydrology
subcontractor, and the City includes an indemnification for the, City against all claims and
damages to any property or any person which may arise out of consultant's negligent acts, errors
or omissions. However, if the consulting firm; dissolves and no longer exists, there may be no
responsible entity for such :indemnity and defense. In his research., the City Attorney did not find
any authority for such. indemnification nor a prohibition of it. In his opinion, however, even if a
condition :for indemnification is imposed and accepted by the developer without a challenge,
there are so many potential v_ ariables- and obstacles that ivis questionable whether the City would
be assured of having the desired level or protection. in perpetuity. Recommended condition of
approval No. 13 was included to address. the Planning Commission's request. If the City Council
desires to impose such a condition, the City Attorney would draft the final language for the
indemnification.
• Staff met with the' Petaluma trolley representatives on December 16. They submitted comments
on January 7, which they requested be included in the PCD Development Plan (Attachment 7).
Some of the remarks relate to the objectives of the project. These comments were forwarded to
the developer who added a paragraph under Section 7.1. that states a 14 -foot wide access
corridor from the southwest corner of Parcel B to the northeastern corner of Parcel B will be
available for use by the Petaluma Trolley when the Trolley is ready to start construction .(page
•
34).
Paul Marangella, Director of Economic Development and Redevelopment was' consulted
regarding the draft- Retail Leakage. and Strategy Study completed in, November of 2003. Mr.
Marangella advised, that the study found that the City of Petaluma is experiencing a significant
degree of retail sales leakage for "comparison" retail facilities. These facilities feature
merchandise :for which customers generally compare prices, such as, electronics, home
furnishings,: fashion, etc. Shoppers for this type of merchandise are usually willing to drive
farther for their purchases. Therefore; the report suggested that large, format general merchandise
stores, discount department stores large format .house and home centers, large format
electronics/home entertainment stores and name brand retailers he-added. to the City's retail
opportunities. The report evaluated the retail suitability of eight sites within. the City based on
criteria including site visibility and exposure; accessibility, location, adjacent land uses, site
configuration and redevelopment availability. The Petaluma Village Marketplace was, ranked last
out of the eight due to its remote location, 'lack of direct access, to Highway 1,`0 'its poor
exposure to Petaluma Boulevard North, and, its less than optimal layout and configuration_.
As of the writing of this report, the applicants have not provided `information regarding_ the
expected tenants.
S: FINAL SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT:
The required 45 -day review period for the Draft Subsequent EIR originally began on December
2, 2002; 'however, due to lack of notification to, some: interested parties, the public comment
_.period ,was revised to..begin December, 18, 2002' arid„ end _on, February ; 3, 20.03.. The Planning,
Commission held public hearings on the Draft SEIR, on January 14 and 28.: 1 2003. At the
conclusion of the public comments, the Planning Commissioners recommended clarifications
and the incorporation of additional information into: the document., The Planning Commission
then authorized staff to initiate and supervise prepa "ration of a.. Final Subsequent Environmental
Impact Report (FSEIR), which would respond to all significant environmental points raised
during the 45 =day public review period and requested the opportunity to review the Final. SEIR.
The Planning Commission reviewed the FSEIR on April. 22, 2003, and forwarded a
recommendation to the City Council for °certification.
The City's EIR consultant, Lamphier Gregory; prepared the FSEIR, which provides responses to
comments received' on the Draft. SEIR and clarifies any errors, omissions, or misinterpretations.
The Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report includes the Draft and the•Final' `documents:
Corrections /revisions: to the; Draft :are contained: in the Final document dated April 2003.
Underlined text represents language that has been added to the SEIR document; text with
str-ikeeu :has been deleted from the SEIR. The Draft document also contains a Mitigation
Monitoring Program, which state law requires: be adopted for mitigation measures -that are
adopted. or made conditions of approval. The Final document contains reproductions of written.
comments received from the public and ;governmental agencies on the Draft. SEIR responses to
these comments, and revised figures. .
The SEIR concluded that the development of Parcels B and C has the potential to result in
environmental impacts in the ;following areas:
•
• Hydrology; drainage and water quality
• Biological resources
• Traffic /circulation
• Air quality
• Noise
• Visual quality and "aesthetics
The Final SEIR concluded that all of the impacts, .except air quality, could be reduced to a less
than significant level with -the 'incorporation of mitigation measures. However, the mitigation
measures for traffic /circulation impacts require; extensive improvements to intersections, the
provision of a new east /west connection and freeway interchange and adoption of a policy
exempting key downtown intersections from General Plan Level of Service thresholds. Until
such time as the improvements are completed and the aanguage in the General Plan modified, the
impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. New traffic generated by the project would
affect air quality by increasing regional emissions'by amounts greater than Bay Area Air Quality
Management District ( BAAQMD) significance thresholds. Mitigation measures would reduce
the amount of emissions, `but the remaining amount would still exceed the BAAQMD
significance thresholds.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that the SEIR be certified prior to
• project approval. In order to certify the SEIR, the decision- making body must conclude: 1) that
the document has been completed in compliance with CEQA; 2) that the. decision- making body
has reviewed and considered the information in the EIR prior to approving the project; and 3)
that the final EIR reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis.
CEQA requires, the decision - making agency to balance the economic, legal, social,
technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental
impacts when determining whether to approve a project (Section 15093). If the lead agency
decides to approve a project in spite: of its significant adverse impacts, two sets of findings must
be made. The first set of firndings "must state how the lead agency has responded to the significant
effects identified in the EIR; the second set of findings must state how the specific economic,
legal, social, technological or other benefits of the proposed project outweigh the unavoidable
adverse impacts. This second set of findings is formally known as a "Statement of Overriding
Conditions ".
6. NOTICING'
A Notice of Pubfic - Hearing was published in the Argus Courier on April 7, 2004. A total of 962
notices were also marled to owners and occupants of properties within 500 feet of the Petaluma
Village Marketplace site as well as interested parties who requested notification.
7. CORRESPONDENCE:
• All correspondence received - since the Planning Commission public hearings is included as
Attachment 8. This includes a letter received in the Community Development Department on
9
February 5, 2004 from the Law Offices of Brian Gaffney; Mr. Gaffney's letter relates
specifically to the Subsequent Environmental Impact Report. As previously stated in this. report,
the comment period on the Draft:document ended on February 3, 2003. Staffand the City's SE'IR
consultant, however, have responded. to Mr. Gaffney's letter in the form of a memo to the City
Manager. The response is included in.Attachment 8.
8. FINANCIAL IMPACTS
This is a private development project subject to applicable City Special Development Fees. A
contract planner working on a full cost-recovery basis has processed the application.
9. CONCLUSION
The Planning. Commission recommended certification of the Subsequent Final Environmental
Impact 'Report and approval of 'the PCD � modification.
10. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Hear presentations by staff and the applicant; 2)
Open the Public Hearing for comments: on the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact, Report
and the requested modification to the River Oaks /Petaluma. Factory Outlet Village Master'Plan'to
allow development as .proposed in the Petaluma Village Marketplace, .Planned Community
District General Development Plan. 3) Continue the Public Hearing to a date specific, if
necessary. Additional meetings will then be scheduled ,and noticed after- legislation reflectih' the
Council's direction is: drafted. t
10