HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 7.A 06/21/2004IAN 1 "
x.i
�A
CITY OV ETAL(MA, CALIFORNIA' o
A GENDA BIM,
Agenda Title Consideration and passible action on, a
117eetink -Date: April 19, 2004
recommendation from the Planning Commission regarding;
A) A Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for
pro,posed development Hof Parcels B and C of the former
Mee"' ng 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 d
g of Parcels B Iand
C as proposed in •the Petaluma Village Marketplace Planned
Community District General DevelopmentPlan.
Location: 2200 Petaluma Boule "yard `North. [APNs 04'8 -080 -.039
007- 401 - .043, 007- 401 -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.'REZ0200-I
Catmory (check one) "
❑ Consent Calendar X Public I- fearing `❑ New Business
❑ Unfinished Business ❑ Presentation
Department
.
Direddi
Contact , Perso Phone
Number 778 -4301
C y
Michae ,
l »,�C. o
etsi Lewitter
e e mument
Project Planne
Cost of Proposal N/A
Account` Number N/A
Amount Budgeted N/A
Name of Fund: N/A
Attachments to_ Agenda :Packe't 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, 2.003 memo to 'the Planning Commission outlining, the agreements reached between the
City Manager and the applicants.
PP ,
5. December 2 j003 m "emo to it `e ;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 ace 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 9:1-13.6 Approving the original PCD Master Plan Program for the River
Oaks /Petaluma.Factory Outlet Village Project (for reference).
11. Petaluma Villa e Market
g place Planned Community District General Development Plan.
12.. Full =size conceptual plan (City Council only).
13'. Subsequent Environmental', Impact Report consisting of two volumes`; -Draft SEIR and Final SEIR
(City Council only).
4 6ur,► Gary. 'Statement Public, - Hearing, and,! considerati6n of recommendations from _the Planning
.. p P �'') p P
orti issiomon'the Final Subsequent.Envtronmental Im „act :Re port FSEIR and ro osed inodi`fcation 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 Distr-.rct.:GeneraI ,;Development Plan
The applicants are proposing, to :develop. Parcel, C', which :comprises 16.3 acres to' the north of the exi'st'
Petaluma Village Premium .Outlets, with a 1 1'"0 to 12. screen movie -theater, a 36 square foot retar
building and 527 parkiri,g spaces ". Additional commercial s`pace,, 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,Aeveloped with up to 161000 square: feet of retail space and 7 parking spaces. A new
access, road '(Village Drive) is proposed ,from Petaluma _Boulevard North into ,Parcel B., The - project also; 1.
includes landscap.ingr and the continuation of "the existing Riverwa'lk trail, along the Petaluma River.
Recommended City Council. Ac'tion/SuREested "Motion
1. - 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 pub_Tic input or Council
deliberations. Otherwise; �direet staff;as to is „ ro riate future act ions,°neluding `drafting' legislation..
Reviewed b Finan'c'e Director:
Reviewed by'City Attorney
Date:
Approved,6yt Manager,
Date':
Date:.
Today's Date "
Revision # and, Date Revised:
File Code:
#
April 8 2004
a
FOR
PETALUMA, VILLAGE MARKETPLACE,- MODIFICATION RIVER
OAKS/PETALUMA'FACTOAY OUTLET VILLAGE MASTER PLAN
1. EXECUTIVE, SUMMARY'
The applicants are reqpesting A pioyd] o,C modification the " 1 �bbroved River Oaks/Petaluma
p i I - I - a � - -_ .- . cat - - on �t 1 a 1 - - �,
Factory Outlet Village Planne , d Community District (PCD)� !M aster.. PIan to allowdev'elopment of
the parcels north and,196fith o the existing 25 acre Petal urna Village Premium Factory Outlet
(Parcel A). The proposal includes development of Parcel B, the approximate 23 acre southern
parcel, with up to 163 ;square, feet of retail space and 775 patking spaces. Parcel C, which
comprises approximately 16 ,atfes, to 1he north of the existing Outlet Village, would be developed
with up to 81,0 1 00 square f6et of building flobf area. The, ap plicants - a p pl still desire , to: develop a 10 to
., i a 1
12 screen movie theater on Parcel .0 as well as a 361000 square ,foot retail building and 445
parking spaces. How&ver-, !a movie theater is currently under. construction downtown and,
therefore, under the Diowntowh Theater Ordinance,, atheater would, be prohihited on this parcel.
J ,
The applicants have, indibaf'6&� thdyvi would subkftute- the' f o's6d theater with additional
P p
commercial uses consisterit With t , he `�,P6 ,Master Plan;.,- �A new�access. road (Village Drive) is
proposed from Petaluma Boulevard "North',into� I Parcel B.,, Thepr9ject also includes landscaping
and the continuation of the bx"I'Mfig "kiverwalk trail along-'4hd Re'taluma River. 'The River
Oaks/Petaluma Factory Opttet'ViflaR& Planned Community Di§trict; 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 recommend' that the City Council certify
the Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (FSE1R)' this, decision was upheld when the
J
Commission voted against re6onsideratibn of tfi'e recommendation on May 27, 2003. On
December 9, 2003, the Planning Cbmtnissibn voted to',,fec.orrim.end'' approval of the PCD
modification subject to con'dltions of approval (Attachment �1).
1 BACKGROUND':
ire 7247�7'acfe��project site was Zoned d "C
In 19,91, the entire zoned" , ommunity.-District Floodplain
Combining and Floodw.ay '(P-Q,, PF-C, and FW), and a' Planned Community District (PCD)
Master Plan Program was :approved, subject to 55 conditions of approval. With ',the ,zoning of the
entire 72+ acres to a.P-C District, it was determined that some kind of corrimercial'&velopment
would occur at this location.The s was divided into three Parcels for planning purposes. Parcel
C consists of - 16.3+/- acres and isAhe, most' northern parcel Parcel Ais approximately 25 acres
and was subsequently" devel oped 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 B and C.
i.
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; office ,and financ,'ial institutons',on the 72 +/- site. T}te ' PC , D Master Plan° ,Pro'gram
p ail factory outlet stores oil, Parcel A.' How ever, uses
P
fowPar det B ls and a C l were not s 'fically known and, therefore, could not, be analyzed
g g e P P
thoroug Condition of approval . ' 51 °required environmental analysis in conjunction With any
application for development of`Parce'ls B and C. This condition "also required "that development
proposed for ,Parcels B and .0 be subject to the, PCD modification requirements as sei forth in the
Zoning Ordinance.
A Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) was prepared by Lamphier: Gregory
and, released'forpublic comments in November 2002., Although a SubsequentEIR_.is a complete;
EIR, it focuses mainly on new informat and substantial changes to a project and, therefore, .
does not revisit many ,of the ,topics' addressed .in the original. EIR fora project., The DSEIR,
identified; several potential; environmental impacts associated with; development of the project ;
that,would signif cant and unavoidable These, impacts included unacceptable levels o - .service
at, the Petaluma Boulevard North/Washington. Street intersection and 'on segmentsof 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; 'co nnect ion and freewayinterchange,,and Council
; adoption' ofA policy'exemp.ting key_downtown 'intersections.from .General Plan Level of S.ervvice,
thresholds. Until such °finie as the improverrients are; completed' and the language in, the General
Plan modi=fied,, ahes impacts would remain significant and ,unavoidable. In addition new traffic
generated' by the project would affect air quality by increasing regional emissions by ;amounts
ZIT 'g y Q. Y g , . fissions; bu the r emaining amount
eater than Ba Area Air . ualit Mana ement District BAA M''D si ificance
thre
Mi.ti ation measures; reduce the: amount of em _ • _ g . would
still.exceed the BAAQMD .significanc'ethresholds..More. detailed information regarding impacts
that would remain significant after the° incorporation of mitigation measures is coritained; in the
SEIR and summarized in the December 10, 2002, Planning, Commission =staff ' Ireport included as
Attachment 2.,
'The Planning Commission :held public hearings on the DS'EIR on January 14, January 28, and
February 3, 20:03. The Commission reviewed the Final -_Subsequent EIR (FSEIR) on April 22,
2003�at which time,they yoted.5 -l to ' .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, Judy 22, October 28 and December % ,2003. (The April 22, 2003, Planning Cornirn ssion
staff reports for both the FSEIR and the project, are included as Attachment 3) .At the of
July 22 the Planning Coirimissioners expressed frustration regarding the, Chelsea Group's lack
of response io Commission and ciii °zen comments relating td the conceptual site plan and asked
.the; City Manager to negotiate with the applicants to address specific issues. A memo to the;
Planning.Cornmission dated October: 24 '2003,. outlines the agreements'reached` between the City
Manager and the applicants (Attacliineiit 4) 'At the meeting of October 28, 2001," the Planning:
Commission reviewed the agreements; but still had concerns regarding the overabundance of
parking and hardscape, possible configurations. and sizes of buildings on B, conformance
w ith the Petaluma River Access fand' ,Enhancement Plan• - setbacks and circulation within the
project. A memo to the; Planning C.ommi`ssion dated` December 2,, 2003, - includes the
Commi'ssioners' concerns and Chelsea's responses (Attachment 5). After taking addi'tional
4,.
L
w
public •input .;and len th Commiss i . g
g y on discussion- The Plan Commission voted 4 -2 to
recommend "to
the Cit approval of the'PCD subject'to amended conditions.
3. P'ROJECT`D.ESCRIPTION :
The applicants have ' revised the .Petaluma Village Markefplace Planned` Community District
General Development Plan'to allow 'developrinent on Parcels B °and C asp follows:
U to,, 163,000 ross s uare feet of 'Commercial ref
Parcel B
p g q ail, uses .would be constructed. The
development, including parking, wouaintain an average
ld' m k setbac of 150' from the top of
riverbank, as required in this sect bn of the.ri'ver 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 for a total;-of 851 stalls, However, a ratio of only' 4..75:1,000, parking spaces will be
PCD Develo m'en Plan fates that u a to 30 ercent the km sac
p p , g p (approximatel 0),will be tra nsferred to Parcel C. The
p p p par g sp will be compact, which
is consistent with the City's Parkin ,,Design Standards. The agreement with the City Manager
• 5
would becom s . The a lecantOOp�roposal results 'in .more that anything ,over -a 4:1,000:
et, but stated ratio
p pp compact spaces, providing a greater
reduction' in hardscape. The:. City's, .standard forretai'l 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. (1.5:
Access to Parcel B from Petaluma Boulevard North wi °11 be provided. via, Village Drive. Village
Drive will pass through a =separation between ihe,bu_i_ldings on Parcel B and continue behind the
buildings to provide ;a connection between Parcels R and A., .The. separation between the
buildings will allow a view corridor from Highway 101 Ito the' nver'
Parcei.0
A maximum of 181;000 • q e feet' of burldin floor area is ,' ro ed for Parcel C. At th
s - r g p pos is time
the applicants - are strll prop
osing a 45,000 square,.., foot theater " d, 3;6,000 of retail space.
:
However, a 'theater Js 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 P'CD 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 C is also proposed to be 5 square feet "of gross building area.
�p Parcel, B, results in a to. "t�al of 44
This, combined. with the 40: irking spaces transferred fromm, 5
parking spaces on "Parcel .C.
5
i
The. uses. 'for both Parcels B and C are listed in the PC_D General „Development Plan.on
page' 1`0., It is ;important to note that the actual placement and f t
, design ohe. buildings will be
-
subject to S -ate Plan and ArchitecturalReview (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 - need to be found
consi'sternt wiih 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 Courncil'sreview.
4.. 'PLANNING COMMISSION`- REVIENV -
As previousl g ssion recommended certi- ficafion of'the Subsequent
y ,.
state_: the 'Planning Comma
EIR on April 22, 2003. The C6 mmission concluded their review of the
project at their pecember
9, 2003 meeting and recommended approval, with. conditions. and /or requests as follows:
,a. Perfori-nance 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 VVal -Mart to be more,gener c, e g:. "discountdepartmeni stores "..
d:, No runoff should be allowed to go 'into .irrleCs that drain directly into the creeks or
river.
e. There should be rniti`gation :for: merchants' loss .of downtown parkiing spaces if'traffic
mitigation measutes to:increase.leyels of service at intersections are;unposed:
f: A, conservati'on easement should`, be recorded - to preserve the triangular' portion of
Parcel B south of Deer Creek: The conservation_jeasement should provide use limits,
.,. not be so restrictive; that ;it. excludes ,trolley. The Planning, Commission
requested the; opportunity io review the conservation easement - prior , to recordation :'
g_ The River' alk 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..Publi.c access shall then continue' up the railr "oad right -of way,
to connect to the bridge crossing (around.entire'tri angle section of Parc el B').
h: `Staff should, explore with the City „Attorhey.indemnifi anguage to hold the: City
harinlessfor anydamage'to stores „within, the Petaluma Villager Marketplace, homes in
the City of Petaluma,, or properties' n,`the downtown area if the hydrology report is
inaccurate land flooding occurs.
i. Staff should meet with the, Trolley °representatives to ensure their concerns,
are addressed.
j, Staff ,should review the project in li.ghtof the Retail Leakage and Strategy Study:
k. The�applicant should be ,prepared to identify the ;expected major tenants arthe City'
Council meeting
I., S'PAR'C review should include emphasis on the foll'ow'ing comments; from the
Planning Commission:
,u 'M
it
�.J
1. View corridors: A maximum. 125 -f6ot wide visibility corridor should occur
- between the buildn. gs on Parcel B. The visibility corridor ishould 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 bu `l_ding,and difficulty of'na_vigating, between one building and another.
elements mcludin sr- a e, should incorporated to
3. Circulation:. Destgn ; g "" "�gn 'g be „
ensure,people do o have t tog cars to go from'one parcel to another —
et into their
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 applicants proposal includes the R'iverwalk along the' north side of Deer Creek on Parcel B,
but instead of going back down the so uth side of Deer Creek and then along the river as
• requested by the Planning Commission; the applicants are still proposing that the
continue along the' railroad right -of. way to the southern -most point of the 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 I 1 could also be, deleted.
The City Attorney was con sul "ted' regarding, the Commission's request for indemnification
against any losses due to flooding' if the hydrology report for the' 'SEIR is inaccurate. Mr.
Rudnarisky noted that, the contract between the SEIR consultant; who retained. the hydrology
subcontractor ;' and the City inc'
ncludes an , indemnif cati'o n 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 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 variables and obstacles that it 'is ^questionable whether the City would
be assured of having 4 the desired level or protection in perpetuity: Recommended condition of
approval No. 1.3 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 lb. 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
7
the developer who_added',,,a paragra under Section, 7.1, that states a 1,446ot wide ;access
-
corridor from the !.southwest .. of Parcel B to the: northeastern, corrie'f ,of Parcel '13 will be
available for use'by the Petaluma, Trolley when the Trolley is ready to start. construction (page'
34).
Paul Marangella, D.ire6tor of Economic Development a . nd . . Redevelopment, Was consulted
regarding, .the draft Retail- Leakage atid':Straiegy Study Completed in November of 2003. Mn
Marangella adVi'sed.,thdt_thestud , .found tharthe Y �.Cit of Petaluma is experiencing A - s ignificant
-
,degree of retail sales leakage, ,for comparison" retail facilities, . These facilities feature
m erchandise for which, customers generally compare, prices, such as electronic s, home
furnishing fashioh, for this type of merchandise are usually -willing.. to ani-ye
- farther f6r 1-heir.pul(ba-ses. Therefore, the report, suggested that. large format general ;merchandise.
stores;, discbun't 'department stores, large f6fmAt ho&se and home cerifers, ;large format
electronics/ho' me entertainment stores- -and name brand retailers be added to. the City's retail
opportunities. 'The.repQrt evaluated ,the retail suitability of sites within. the City based on
ri
critea. 'including site 'visibi1ity and exp6su o� accessibility location, adjacent land Uses, site
configurafion, and redevelopment availability,., The Petaluma Village Marketplacewas ranked 'last
out of .th ei'gM' due. 10 ;its . remote location, lack of direM-access to Highway 1,04, i I t& noor
exposure to Petaluma Boulevard .North and its less than optimal layo.utarid,configuration.
As of the writing; - of this report,, the l.applicatits have not provided inf6n regarding: the
expected tenants
5. FINAL S,UBSEQUENT,EN�VIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT'-
The required 45-A review period for the Draft ,Subsequent EIR origi I began'^ on Decernbet
howev due to � lack of
2, 2002 howevj` notificatio'n Ao some.
interested parties the publ m
- I - 1 ubl" c co.mm.ent
period was revised. to begin December IS, 2002 and end on, February 3, 200.3. The. Planning
Commission held public hearings on the braft. SUR an January 14 and' .28, 2001 At the
conclusion of the pub is comments the. PlanningCbmmissioners recommended c" lari I "ficafions
and the i neorpor'diti on-of ;add information into 1the document.. The Pjla.nn in P_ Commi ssion
then. authorized staff to initiate and supervise pre'pdrat"on of a, Final Sbbseq
uent;1rivironmental
Impact Report ff$EIR), 'which would respond . to all significant environmental,
' oifits!l `raised:
during the, 4.5-day'public review period and',r6ques(eA the opportunity Jo, review the Final SEIR.
The'.Planning CpmmissJ'gri .,reviewed the FSE'lR- on April 22, 2001, and f6rwarded z
recommendatim to the City Council for certification:
The City's EIR consultant. Lamphier Gre�gQry; prepared, the FSEIR which' 'responses to
provides -
, comments received on 'the.Draft SEIR and clarifies' an terpretationsi,'
Y errors,. omissions., or M sin . I
The Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report inc , the Draft and . the i . naf documents
Correc-tions/revislons to the Draft are contained 'in: the Final do cument dated April 2003.
Underlined text represenis-'Janguage..that ha:8.'been added' to. the SEIR document; text with,.
stiikee 'has been deleted. :from the SEIR" The: Draft document also contains a Miti
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 wrftten
comments received 'from the public: and', governmental, agencies on the: Draft - SEIR responses to
these comments,. and; revised figtires. •
K
The SEIR 'concluded' that the development of Parcels B and Chas the ,potential to result in
environmental impacts. in the following areas;
• . .Hydrology, drainage, and eater 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,incorpoiation of mitigation measures. However, the mitigation
measures for traffic /circulation .impacts.'require exterisiv& :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 language in the General. Plan modf ed, the
impacts would remain s� ificant
p ' igni d unavoidable 'New traffic generated by the project would
,an
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, (CE.QA) requires that' the ;SEIR, be certified prior to
Ae project :approval. in order to certify the SEIR the decision = making body must conclude: l) that
the document has been completed in compliance, with CEQA; 2) that the decision- making body
has reviewed and considered'.'the :formation in the EIR prior to approving the project; and 3)
that the final EIR reflects the
lead agency's independent judgment and analysis.
CE_QA requires the decision making agency to, balance the economic, legal', social,
technological, or other benef is of a proposed project against 'its unavoidable environmental
impacts when determining whether- to approve a ,project (Section 15.093). 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 'findings must state how fhe 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 benef is 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 Public'Rearing was published in the Ar.gus. Courier on April 7, 2004. A total, of 962
notices were also. mailed to owners and occupants of properties within 500 feet of the Petaluma
Village Marketplacgsite 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
. L
-February 5, 2004 from the Law Offices of Brian Gaffney: Mr. Gaffney'& ,letter relates
specifically to' the: Subsequent Environmental lmpact As previously stated in this ;report ,
the comment.period on the Draft document ended on February 3, 2003. Staff and the City's,SEIR
consultant, however, :have responded .to Mn-0affney's letter in the form b ;f a`'men o to the City
Manager. The response is.included in,Attachment 8.
8, FINANCIAL I'MP,ACTS
This is, to private development, project. subject to applicable City Special„ Development "Fees. A
contract planner working on a. full cost - recovery basis has-processed thee applicatiori.
9`. CONCLUSION .- -
The Planning Commission recommended certr`fication of the Subsequent Final Environmental
Impact -Report ;arid, approval of the PCD modification.
10. RECOMMENDATION;
Open the Public Hearing for comments on the .Final Subse went Environmental Impact Report p )
Staff.recommerids that the City , Council: 1) Hear'` resentations b staff and- the a licant' 2
p 9 s p
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 G'ener-al Development Plan. 3') Continue the Public .Hearing to a -d_ate spec fc;
necessary., Additional meetings will then_ be scheduled and noticed, after legislation reflecting the.
Council's direction'is. drafted. •