HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 7.A-Attch02 04/19/2004• 1 CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
2 MEMORANDUM
3
4 Community Development Department, Planning Division, 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952
5 (707) 778=4301 Fax (707) 778 -4498 E- mail: planning@ci.petaluma.ca.us
6
7 DATE: December 10, 2002 AGENDA ITEM NO. I
8
9 TO: Planning Commission
10
11 FROM: Betsi Lewitter,Project Planner
12
13 SUBJECT: PETALUMA VILLAGE MARKETPLACE — MODIFICATION OF RIVER
14 OAKS /PETALUMA FACTORY OUTLET VILLAGE MASTER PLAN
15 DRAFT SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
16
17 RECOMMENDATIONS
18
19 Staff recommends that thee 'Planning Commission:
20 1. Take public testimony regarding the adequacy, of the Draft Subsequent Environmental
i Impact Report ( DSEIR). (Although the project was also publicly noticed, staff
2 recommends review of only the DSEIR at this time; a complete staff report on the
23 proposed modification to the River Oaks /Petaluma Factory Outlet Village Master Plan
24 will be presented at the continued public hearing.)
25 - .. .
26 2. Continue the public: hearing to the meeting of January 14, 2003.
27
28 3. Order the preparation of the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report ( FSEIR),
29 which will include written response's to all pertinent written comments and public
30 testimony.
31
32 4. Forward a recommendation to the City Council regarding certification of the FSEIR as
33 adequate and complete and a recommendation regarding the project app_ roval.
34
35 PROJECT .8U.M MARY
36
37 Project: Petaluma Village Marketplace
38 2200 Petaluma Boulevard North
39 Parcel A: APN 048- 080 -039,, 007- 401 -043, 007 -401 -044,
40 Parcel B: APN 007 -391 -009,
41 Parcel C: APN 048- 080 -.038,
42 Abandoned Railroad Right -of -Way: 048 -080 =033 and 007- 391 -035
03 Project File No. REZ02001
44
ATTAC 1`°911/1 E N T 2
Page 1
I
2
Project Planner:
B'etsi hewitter
r.
3
Project Applicant:
Chelsea Property Group
4
5
Property Owner:
Chelsea Property Group
6
7
Nearest CrossStreet.to Project Site: Corona Road
8
9
Property Size:
72.47 acres
10
11
Site Characteristics:
The :River Oaks /Petaluma. Factory Outlet Village Planned
12
Community District site consists of a total of 72.47 acres. The site
13
is divided into three parcels for planning purposes: Parcel C is the
14
most northern parcel (APN 048- 080 - 038). and„ is 1 + /- acres in
15
size; Parcel A is the central parcel (APN 048 -080 -039 '007 -40:1-
16
043 and 007 - 401 -044) consists of 25+/- acres .and is developed
17
with the retail outlets and 'appurtenances; and r 'Parcel. B is the most
18
southern parcel (APN 007 - 391 -09) and is 22.9 + /- acres in area. In
19
addition,, there is, abandoned railroad right -of4ay (APN 048 -080-
20
033 and 007 -391 -035) ;consisting of approximately 8.28 - acres.
21
22
The undeveloped portions of the site are - relatively flat. A total of
23
1.47 acres of potential jurisdictional wetlands occur on the site 'in
24
the form of seasonal. wetlands; emergent marsh and riparian
25
habitat.
26
27 Existing Use: The Petaluma Factory Outlet Village is located on Parcel A; :Parcel
28 B, C and the abandoned railroad right -of -way are vacant.
29
30 Proposed Use: Development of up to 173 + /- gross square feet of commercial
31 retail uses on Parcel B and , a 12- screen movie theater `and a
32 36,000 + /- commercial retail building on Parcel C.
33
34 Current. Zoning: Planned Community District (P -C)
35
36 Proposed Zoning: Planned Community District (P -C)
37
38 Current General! Plan Hand Use: Special. Commercial
39
40 Proposed General Plan Land Use: Special Commercial
41
42 Subsequent. Actions after Planning Commission Review:
43
44 9 City Council review and certification of the Subsequent EIR
45 • City Council. review and approval of the modification to the River Oaks /Petaluma Factory
46 Outlet Village Master Plan.
Page 2
1 -
e Improvement Plans
3 e Building Permits
4
5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
6
7 BACKGROUND
8
9 The entire site was prezoned /zoned Planned Community District, Floodplain Combining and
10 Floodway (P -C, FP -C and FW), 'and a PCD Master Plan Program for the River Oaks /Petaluma
11 Factory Outlet Village was approved `by the City Council in 1991, subject to 55 conditions of
12 approval.. (Resolution 91 =116 was included in the binder given to the Planning Commission on
13 June 14, 2002.) Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
14 (CEQA), an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was found to adequately evaluate the project's
15 impacts upon the environment. and was certified and adopted by the City Council prior to
16 approval of the project. Parcel _A was subsequently developed as the Petaluma Village Premium
17 Outlets. The applicants. now desire to develop Parcels B and C.
.18
19 A Compliance Analysis, attached as Attachment. B, reviews how the Petaluma Outlet Village
20 complied with the Conditions of Approval, Mitigation Compliance Plan, City Council
21 Resolution 91 -122, Biologica Mitigation Plan and the PCD Guidelines.
2
3 Monitoring of the Biological Mitigation Plan was conducted by Zentner and Zentner for five
24 years between 1994 and 1.999, extended monitoring was then undertaken by Wetlands Research
25 Associates, Inc. Monitoring, results showed that the implemented mitigation plan was generally
26 successful, with the exception of the establishment of_a_50._percent cover by native herbaceous
27 plants within five years: A site visit with. representatives of the Califomia Department of Fish
28 and Game (CDFG) and 7 the . Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) was conducted in
29 July of 2002. CDFG acknowledged that establishing a native grassland plant - community that met
30 the mitigation plan performance criteria of 50 percent cover was. not feasible because of the high
31 number of extremely'invasive and competitive non- native plants that have been introduced into
32 California over the past 150 years. Most -of these plants are now considered to be naturalized or
33 "new natives The highest percentage reached during the monitoring period was 35 percent in
34 the fourth year of monitoring. 'Based on the conditions at the site and discussions with CDFG,
35 management measures were recommended, including measures ,to control non - native grasses
36 from increasing and invading °new, areas. (Mitigation Management Plan is available for review at
37 the Community Development Department) During the site visit; all of the mitigation wetland
38 areas were conf rmed, `to be vegetated with '90 to 100 percent cover and contained a. very high
39 percent cover by native wetland plants of several different species. CDFG noted that the. created
40 wetlands were functioning as seasonal wetland habitat; in contrast, the existing preserved
41 wetland contained a high percentage of non - native plants. CDFG agreed that the mitigation
42 wetlands were successful. 'in .meeting the performance criteria. In response to CDFG
43 recommendations, a weed control program was undertaken in the wetlands to control expansion
0 4 of three weedy wetland species..
5
Page 3
I Condition of Approval 51 for the original PCD Master Plan Program required environmental
2 analysis to be undertaken prior to any development on Parcels B and C, modification :of the PCD •
3 Development Plan and /or Program and `project. review. Thel environmental analysis for Parcel B
4 was to include "...:potential impacts and -mitigation measures needed to :minimize; adverse
5 impacts to Capri Creek, the Petaluma River and other natural physical features:,..." Mitigation
6 measures were to include preparation .of a, riparian enhancement' plan. The environmental review
7 for Parcel C was to include "....potential impacts and mitigation measures needed to minimize
8 adverse . impacts to existing seasonal wetlands, 'freshwater marsh and riparian habitats Again,. a
9 riparian, enhancement plan was required. Western Ecological Services prepared a :Biological
10 Mitigation Plan in July 1991; this ;report is available at the Community Development
11 Department: The; condition also required any development 'proposed for Parcels B and C to -be
12. °processed pursuant to the Zoning 'Ordinance requirements for a PCD modification ,and to be
13 "...in compliance with the definition of 'the General; Plan Special Commercial designation and all
14 applicable., objectives, policies and goals ".
15
16 Condition of approval 53 required the development of a Preliminary Master Plan for the area
17 including Parcel's B and C as well as the undeveloped and underdeveloped areas south to Lynch
18 Creek, west to Petaluma Boulevard North and north to Corona Road. In 1996, the City began the
19 preparation of a Specific. Plan for the Corona Reach, which is an approximately one mile stretch
20 of the Petaluma River., running roughly parallel to Highway 101. from Lynch Creek to ,Corona.
21 Road. However „in'2000, -the City Council suspended the Corona Road Specific Plan because a
22 comprehensive study of drainage, flooding and transportation needs could be accomplished
23 during the General Plan revision process. City Council Resolution 00 -85 directed' staff to process
24 the Chelsea application for development on Parcels B and C without the requirement for a
25 completed Corona.Reach Specific Plan.
26
27 Pursuant - - to Condition , of Approval 51, a Draft.' Subsequent Environmental - Impact ,Report -.has
28 been prepared to evaluate the potential environmental impacts that may result from: the
29 development of the 'Petaluma Village Marketplace proposal (Parcels B and Q. The SEIR is an
30 informational document intended to provide the decision .makers with an objective, impartial
31 source of ihforn ation. A prior DSEIR (dated January 2002) is no longer under consideration and
32 i& not applicable to the current project description. The November 2002 ,DSEIR has identified a
33 number of potential environmental impacts associated with development of the project site.
34
35 Article 19 of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance requires PCD Programs to include+ approximate
36 office and commercial square footages, types and locations of uses proposed, to be included in
37 the development and the general development standards. The PCD Master Plan Program:adopted
38 for- the Petaluma Factory Outlet Village, stated that permitted uses on Parcels B and ;C would be
39 "Commercial .uses wh'ich.will complement the City's existing retail base and add significantly to
40 the City's; tax, base by capturing local dollars that now go elsewhere.:..” The current application
41 includes specific development proposals for both Parcels B and C.
42
43 APPROVAL REQUESTED
44
45 The applicants are , proposing to develop Parcel B with 5 buildings totaling up to 173,400 square.
46 feet of retail space and 923 parking spaces, and to develop Parcel C with a 12- screen movie
Page 4
. , . - u
0 1 theater, 36,000, square feet of .retail space and 527 parking spaces. The project requires the
2 ' certification of a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, approval of a modification to the
3 River Oaks /Petaluma.Factory Outlet Village Master Plan Program and'SPARC approval.
5 STAFF ANALYSIS
6
7 The Draft Subsequent -EIR on the Petaluma Village Marketplace identified a number of potential
8 environmental impacts associated with development of the project site that would remain
9 significant and unavoidable. (See Summary of Significant and Potential Significant Impacts and
10 Mitigations Measures on page ES=4 of the document for a complete list of all impacts and
11 mitigation measures.)
12
13 Potential Impact 7.1. Unacceptable. Level of Service at, Petaluma Boulevard North/Washington
14 Street. This intersection is experience increased delays upon the addition of project -
15 related traffic, operating at an unacceptable LOS E during both the PM peak hour and the
16 weekend midday peak hour.
17
18 Mitigation measures consist of: 1) Improvements to the intersection, including the prohibition of
19 all parking on the northbound and, southbound approaches and restriping the approaches to create
20 new left turn lanes; 2) The provision of a new east /west connection , and freeway interchange
21 north of Washington Street (Rainier Avenue); 3) Adoption of a policy stating that intersection
22 Level of Service thresholds are exempt at key downtown intersections such as Petaluma
a 3 Boulevard/Washington Street.
4
25 Although the mitigation measures would reduce the impacts to less than significant, until the
26 improvements are complete -d And the language in `the General Plan modified, the impacts remain
27 significant and unavoidable... _
28
29 Potential Impact 7.2. Unacceptable Level of Service on Old Redwood Highway Segment
30 Including Overpass. During the weekday .AM peak hour, the roadway segment if projected to
31 continue operating at an unacceptable LOS D upon the addition of project- generated traffic. The
32 roadway segment would deteriorate. from LOS C to LOS D during the PM peak hour with the
33 addition of project- generated
34
35 Mitigation measures include the addition of a second northbound right turn lane at the Old
36 Redwood High_way/U S . f6.1 northbound ramps intersection. An approximately 340 foot long
37 segment of Old, Redwood Highway would need to be widened between the northbound ramps
38 intersection and McDowell Boulevard, resulting in three continuous eastbound lanes between
39 these intersections.
40
41 Although the above mitigation measures would reduce Potential Impact 7.2. to a less than
42 significant level, the impact remains significant and unavoidable until the improvements are
43 completed.
44
0 5 Potential Impact 7:5. Unacceptable Level of Service at the Petaluma Boulevard
6 North/
Washington Street intersection. This intersection is projected to continue operating at an
47 unacceptable LOS F under FUTURE conditions with development of the project.
Page 5
1
2 Mitigation measures would' be the same as those under potential impact 7.1. Again, although" the
3 mitigation measures would reduce the impacts to less than significant, until the -improvements
4. are, completed. and the language in the General Plan modified, the .impacts remain significant and
5 unavoidable.
7 Potential Impact 7.7. Unacceptable Level of Service on Old Redwood Highway Segment
8 Including Overpass. The,roadway segment is projected to continue operating at• an unacceptable
9 LOS E under, FUTURE conditions (conditions anticipated to be present in the year 2015) with
10 development.of'the project.
11
12 Mitigation Measures" include: 1) Improvements to the Highway 101 northbound ramps
13 intersection also a:mitigation measure for Potential Impact 7.2), 2) Widening of Old Redwood
14 Highway freeway overpass whereby two through lanes in each direction would be provided on
15 the overpass.
16
17 Although the. above mitigation measures would reduce Potential Impact 7.7 to a less than
18 significant level, the impact remains significant and. unavoidable until the ;improvements are
1.9 completed.
20
21 Potential Impact 8.2. Increased regional emissions. New traffic generated, by {the! project would
22 increase regional emission by amounts greater than the Bay Area Air Quality Management
23 District..(BAAQMD) significance thresholds.
24
25 Mitigation Measures include: 1) The use of building, design techniques that,reduce area =source
26 emissions, including orientation of .buildings and use" of landscaping to ;maximize natural
27 cooling; installation, of centralized space and'. Water heating and/or use of solar water heating; the
28 use of building materials that facilitate energy conservation; and the use of electric powered
29 landscape equipment. 2) Measures to xeduce automobile, trips to - reduce mobile source. emissions,
30 including a, rideshare, program for employees; construction of transit facilities 'that °are; easily
31 pedestrian accessible; facilitation of transit service to the site; ;provision of retail services for
32 future employees .at the site; provision of on -site or nearby daycare facilities within walking
33 distance; provision of convenient bicycle parkingi for employees and retail customers; provision
34 of safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle access to all uses on the site.
35
36" However, even with the implementation of "the above mitigation measures, regional emissions
37 . are expected to ,be greater "than the BAAQMD significance thresholds and `the impact remains'.
38 significant and unavoidable.
39
40 CEQA Section 15091 requires public agencies to make one or more written findings for each of
41 the significant environmental effects 'identified in an EIR prior to project, approval. The :findings
42 must be, supported by substantial evidence in the record and the agency must present a brief
43 explanation of the rationale for each finding.
44
45 Where potential environmental impacts have been identif ed as significant and unavoidable,
46 CEQA requires decision- makers to balance the economic, legal, social, technological or other
Page 6
� 1 benefits of the project against the unavoidable project - related environmental effects when
2 determining whether or not to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social,
3 technological or other benefits of the proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse
4 environmental effects then those environmental effects 'may be considered "acceptable ". In
5 order to approve a project that will result in significant adverse environmental effects identified
6 in the EIR that cannot be reduced to a level of less than significant, the Lead Agency must state
7 in writing the specific reasons. `to support the project approval based on the Final EIR and/or
8 other information in the record. This is formally known as a "Statement of Overriding
9 Considerations" and is made in addition to the findings required under CEQA Section 15091. If
10 findings of overriding consideration are not adopted by the Lead Agency in those instances
11 where unavoidable project = related environmental effects identified in the EIR would remain
12 significant, the Lead Agency cannot approve the proposed project.
13
14 The Draft Subsequent EIR evaluated. three alternatives: The "No Project" alternative, the
15 . "Retail /Office /Hotel " alternative and the "Wetlands Avoidance" ; alternative, and compared the
16 environmental effects that might be associated with these hypothetical alternatives with those
17 associated with the proposed project.
18
19 Under the "No Project" alternative, no new development would take place on Parcel B or C. This
20 alternative would not be consistent with the approved PCD, Master Plan or with the Special
21 Commercial General Plan designation, the extension of the .existing; Riverwalk would not occur
22 and policies in the Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan would not be implemented.
3
4 Under the "Retail /Office/Hotel" alternative, a total of 110,000 square feet of office space in
25 buildings up to four stories 'in.;height would be developed on Parcel B and a total of 137,500
26 square feet of office space , and a 75,000 square foot, 100 .room hotel in buildings up to three
27 -stories would be built:on Parcel C.. This °alternative would be consistent with the approved PCD
28 Master Plan, and the Riverwalk would be extended to Parcels B and C. This alternative would
29 have the greatest visual /aesthetic impacts due to the proposed building heights, but would result
30 in reduced vehicle trip generation that would not exceed the thresholds of significance
31 established for regional air' pollutants by the BAAQMD. However, although the development is
32 physically feasible, there currently exists a relatively high office vacancy rate and a decline in
33 business travel and tourism and, therefore; the development of office space and a hotel at this
34 location may not be economically feasible.
35
36 The "Wetlands Avoidance" alternative would eliminate the proposed 36,000 square feet of retail
37 building area on parcel C and relocate the theater approximately 250 feet to the northwest in
38 order to avoid the 0.33 -acre wetland area. Parcel B would be developed with 173,400 square feet
39 of retail space. This alternative would be consistent with the approved PCD Master Plan and the
4o Riverwalk could be °extended to: Parcels B and C.
41
42 Based on the evaluation, in the DSEIR, the "No Project" alternative would be regarded as the
43 environmentally superior alternative. However, this alternative is not consistent with the General
44 Plan land use designation and would not meet any of the Project objectives.
Page 7
I Under CEQA, when the "No. Project" alternative has been identified as the "environmentally
2 superior" alternative, it is necessary to .identify another alternative that could be determined to be
3 the environmentally superior alternative in the absence of the "No Project alternative. In this
4 regard,. the "Retail /Office /Hotel" alternative would be, regarded..as the environmentally, superior
5 alternativedue'to the ;lack.ofAny significant, unavoidable' environmental impacts associated with
6 this development. The proposed project and the "Wetland Avoidance alternative would each be
7 expected to have significant and unavoidable_ adverse impacts on regional. air quality while the
8 "Retail/Office/Hotel" alternative would not.
9
10 PUBLIC COMMENTS
11
12 A Notice of Availability of ;an EIR and Public Hearing was published in the Argun. Courier and
13 notices were sent to residents and. property-owners within 500 feet of the subject property.
14
15 Due to the level of interest in this project, 'staff expects there will be written correspondence
16 submitted.-at and prior to the December 10th Planning Commission meeting.
17
18 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
19
20 Section 15162 of the CEQA guidelines requires the preparation of a. Subsequent EIR when
21 information, was not known and could not have been known at the, time the previous EIR. was
22 certified as. complete. The previous EIR contemplated the development of retail, .restaurants,
23 hotel /motel ;and related services, offices, and financial institutions on the 72 +/- site. The PCD
24 Master Plan Program ,provided details regarding the proposed retail factory outlet stores on
25 Parcel A. 'However, uses for Parcels B and G were not specifically known and therefore, could
26 not be analyzed thoroughly. As previously stated in this report, condition of approval'No. 51 for
27 the. original =PCD Master Plan Program for River Oaks /Petaluma Factory Outlet Village
28 required the appropriate environmental review for Parcels B and C prior to project review.
29
30 Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15,082, a Notice of Preparation. (NOP) advising that an.
31 EIR was to be prepared' for - the project was sent to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to
32 responsible and /or trustee state agencies. , After receiving the NOP,, these agencies h'ad_ 30 days in.
33 which to comment on how, in terrns of scope and content; 'the DEIR should treat environmental
34 - information related to the agency'sstatutory responsibilities.
35
36 Once a DEIR is prepared, it must be routed through the State 'Clearinghouse to Al. l responsible
37 and /or trustee agencies. The agencies have 45 calendar days in which to comment on the DEIR.
38 At the same time the DEIR is sent to the'State Clearinghouse, the public must be notified that the
39 DEIR is available for review. A notice was published in , the Argus Courier on November .27th'
40 and sent to residents and property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. The 45 -day
41 review period began December 2 and will continue to January 16, 2003.
42.
43 The purpose of the - December 10' hearing is to receive public input on. 'the :adequacy and
44 completeness of the environmental evaluation presented in the Draft Subsequent EIR., Once the
45 public hearing on the Draft Subsequent EIR has been formally closed, all written and verbal •
Page 8
0 T comments received on the',draft document will be compiled, and responses to those comments
2 will be presented in the Final. Subsequent EIR.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
3
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
•
STAFF REC OMMENDAT16 NS
Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission take public testimony regarding the
adequacy of the Draft Subsequent Environmental. Impact Report on the Petaluma Village
Marketplace project, and continue the public hearing to the meeting of January 14, 2003. At the
close of the January public hearing, direct staff to prepare responses to all. written and verbal
comments received during the public review period.
After all comments are received on the DSEIR, the Planning Commission should take comments
on the project itself and then forward a recommendation to the City Council regarding the
adequacy of the SEIR and a recommendation regarding the project. According to Petaluma's
Environmental Review Guidelines, the Planning Commission may "request to review the Final
SEIR before making a recommendation to the City Council. However, the SEIR must ultimately
be certified by the City Council. Appropriate findings and project conditions of approval will be
included in the January 14, 2003, staff report.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
Commissioners)
B. Analysis of Compliance with Mitigation Measures
C. PCD Program
D. Full size plans
s: \chelsea \12 -10 PC staff report DSEIR
(previously delivered to Planning
Page 9