HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 7.A-Attch02 06/21/2004•
1 CITY OF P.ETALUMA, CALIFORNIA
2 1V EMORANWM
3
4 Community Developmen[ Department; Planning Division, J English.Sireet, Petaluma, CA 94952
5 (707) 778 =4301 :Fax (707)'778 -4498 E- mail: planning@ri.petaluma.ca.us
6
7 DATE: December 1.0, 2 AGENDA ITEM NO. I
8
9 TO: Planning,Commission
10
71 FROM: Betsi Lewttter,.Project Planner
12
13 SUBJECT: PETALUM•A. VILLAGE MARKETPLACE MODIFICATION OF RIVER
14 OAKS /PETALUMA FACTORY OUT LET "VILLAG'E MASTER PLAN
15 DRAFT SUBSEOU ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
16
17 T
RECOMM-ENDA, IONS
18
19 Staff recommends.thatthe ,'Planning Commission:
20 1. Take public testimony regarding 'the adequacy of the Draft: Subsequent Environmental
P P ,
1
Imp Re or DSEIR (Although the. roject was; also publicly noticed, staff
eview
DSE_I'R �at 'this " t =me;. �a complete staff report, on the
pr . y the
p P
23 re commends mo r dification to the ; River Oaks /Petalum`a Factory Outlet Village Master Plan
24 will be presented at, the contmued.publrc;hearing);'
25
26 2. Continue the public'hearing to the,meeting o- f'January 14, 2003.
27
28 3. Order the preparation of the 'Final Subsequent Environm`en'tal Impact Report (FSEIR),
29 which will
include written responses to all pertinent: written' comments and public
m testimony.
31
32 4. Forward a .recommendation to the City Council" regarding certification of the FS'EIR as
33 adequate and .complete. and. a recommendation regarding the'project approval.
34.
35, .., , P ROJECT ;SUMM
37 Project: Petaluma Village.Marketplace
38 .22.00 Petaluma�Boulevard North
39 Parcel A: APN 048=080 -039, 007 - 401 -043, 0,07.- 401=044,
40 Parcel B: APN 007- 39'1 -009,
41 Parcel C` APN 048 -080- 038:,
42 Abandoned Railroad Right -of -Way: 048 - 080 -03 —and 007- 3911 -035
9 Project File No. REZ02001
ATTAGk-4ME1'QT 2
Page `l
I
- Project Planner:
Betsi Lewitter
3
Project Applicant:
Chelsea Property Group
4
5
Pfo,perty Owner "
Chelsea. Property Group
6.
7
'Neares,t'Cross Streeftq
Project'S, to :t Corona Road
8
,
9
Property ':Size
72.4:7 acres
10
11
Ste Ch. aracter stics:
The .River Oaks /Petaluma Factory Outlet 'Village Planned
12
Community District si'te. consists.of a. total of 72 47, acres. The site
13
is divided into three parcels for planningpurpo es Parcel C is the
14
most northern parcel. (APN 048 - 080 -038) and` is 16.3 + /- ,acres in
15
size; : Parcel , A `is. the central parcel ,(APN A48- 080 =039 0.0746t-
16
043 and 0.07 - 401 =044) consists of 25 +/= ;acres: And. 'is developed.
17
with ithe� retail outlets and appurtenances;; and Parce1,13 is the' most,
18
southern. parcel .(APN 00 <7- 391 -09) and is 2,2..0+/- acres in area:; `In
19,
addition, there is abandoned tailroad right -of -way (APN 04'8~080-
20
033 and 007 39`1 -035) consisting of`approzimately 8.28 acres. .
21
22
The undeveloped ,portions of the ;site are relatively flat. A total of
23
1.47 acres of ,potent al' juri sd ictional wetl ands occur on. t site- in
24
thel form of seasonal, wetlands, emergent marsh+ and riparian
25
habitat.
26
A
27
Existing Use:
,
The Petaluma Factory . Ouutlet Village: is located on. Parcel A; Parcel
28
B C,and 4the abandoned railroad right -of .way are'vacant.,
29
30
Proposed Use:
Development of up to 173,40.0 + /- gross square;;feet of .corrimerc al
31
retail uses on A and a 12- .screen movie theater and "a
32
_
36,000 + /- commercial retail building on 'Parcel C.
33,
34
C.urrentZon`ing:
Planned Comm unity "Di`stri'ct (P -C)
35
36
Proposed Zoning:
Planned Comm District (P -C)
37
38,
C urrent Gener Plan Land Use: S p ecial CO mm ercial ,
39
40
Proposed. General Plan Land U'se: Special Commercial,
41
'42
S Actions after )Planning COin llissl0 R e l view:
43
L
•
44 ®. City Council ,revi.ew and certific'atlon Hof the Subsequent `Pik.
4 5
4 Outlet Vu1lage Marew and approval, 'of the modification to the River Oaks /P. etalima Factory
5 ® y
ster Plan.
?age 2
® 1
2
3
4
6
.7
8
9
1 -0
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2
3
24
25
26"
27
28
29
30
31
32.
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
4,1
42
43
0
5
• Site,Plan and Architectural Review Committee approval.
• 'Improvement Plans
a, Building Permits
I0 OJECT DESCRIPTION
BACKGROUND
The entire site was prezoned/zoned Planned ° Community , Distr`ict, Fl "oodplain Combining and
Tloodway (P -C, FP -C and FW); and a PCD Master Plan Program for the River Oaks /Petaluma
Factor Outlet Villa e y g as approved by thel City Council 'in 19 subject to 55 conditions of
approval. (Resolution 91-136 was included in the'binder- given'to the Planning Commission on
June 14, 2002.) Pursuant to they requirements of the Califorhi'a Environmental Quality Act
impacts upon the environment and as ert fied' and ado ted ,b the ly evaluate the project's
nd to ade uat
E t" Rep p y e Gty "Council prior' to
A , an Environmental Im ac ort EIR was fou
pp pp , �' develop Parceldeveloped as the° Village Premium
approval of the' project.,. Parcel A was su
Outlets. The a licants now d,esii dev B and':C..
A Compliance Analysis attached 1as Attachment- B,' reviews how the Petaluma Outlet Village
comp
9lt 122, Biologa i eal Mitigg ation Planaand the1PCD Gui'dmnleSnee Plan, City Counci'1
Monitoring of the Biological' Miti' gait iOn. Plan .was ,conducted by".Z'ehtn and Z'entn -for five
years between 1994 and .1999; extended "monitoring °was then undertaken by Wetlands Research
Associates, Inc. Monitoring results: showed that thei implemenied "rnitigation plan was generally
successful, with the exception of the establishment of a SO percent cover by native herbaceous
plants within five years. A site visit with representatives of the `Cal'ifornia Department of Fish
and Game (CDFG) and the Regional Water Quality 'Contro'l':Board (RWQCB) was conducted in
July of 2002. CDFG acknowledged that establishing a native. grassland plant community that met
the mitigation plan performance criteria of 50. percent cover was not •feasible because of`the high
number of extremel y ` and competitive non..- native plants that have been - introduced into
- i °nva 'sive a
California over the ,past 150 years, .:=Most `of these .plants are now considered, be naturalized or
"new natives ". ,The highest percentage reached during the monitoring period was 35 ,percent in
g ,Y gW Based on "the conditions at th - DFG ,
the 'fo,urth .ear of momtonn -e' site" and di "scu ssions with .0
from increasin and m. (Mitigation IVlana" ement to control non "native grasses
mane
gem, mgeasure v were " new m e
e including measures
g ( g Plan is• available for review at
the Comrnu
mty °Developmer*° De artment) During, ahe site visrt, all of the mitigation wetland
P
Y vegetated 90 to 100 percent cover and contained a, "very high
obeegetated �
p c ! , wetland plants ofseueral differenf species. CDFG noted that t d
as, we con armed t
�er b h,natwe g se asonal wetland habitat; in :contrast; he erstng preserve
er o
v
wetland
ere
cn
ere" unc �on�n as se
wetlands were':, "successf 1 in m ge of non - native plants. CDFG agreed that the mitigation 11
e g 'p criteria.. "In response to CDFG
et�n the c
recommendat16ns; a weed con'tro'l program was undertaken in. the wetlands to control expansion
of three weedy wetland species:
Page 3
2
3
4'
5
6
7
8
9!
10
-11
12
1 3.
14
1,5
1.6-
13
18
19"
20
2
2'2 ,
2-3
,24
�25
26
27
28'
29
30�
31
.32
33
34
35
36,
37
m
- 30
40.
4.1,
42.
43
45.
, 46
Condition of Approv'Al 51 :for the or igina l PCD Master,Plan Program reqp'ired, env i ronm ent al
an.alysi-s to be undertaken prior ' to an development on Parcelg and - Cimodi , ficafion l of the PCD
Developmente'Plah, and/or Program and project review. The ,envifbn mental analysis for Parcel . B
was. -to inclu&."...'potential" impacts and mlif2ation measures ed to ,.need-, minimi ze adverse
impaots Cap6'.Creek,, the Petaluma River and 'other-, natural physical ifeatifres Mitigation
meas were 10 in"c]ude, preparation of ripa enhance . ment plan. The- environmental review
-
for P;krc,e C was to include ".-..poteriti'al impacts and mitigation measures need0: to minimize
adverse impacts to existin' g seasonal wetlands, freshwater marsh and npan'an,habitats". Again, a
riparian enhancement plan was req yired. Western Services prepared a Biological
Mit
0
0,gati-n, 'Plan in July .1991; this report is available, at thel. Community Development
Department: The condition alsoqapt.. required an�y, development arcels Band �C to be
nt proposed.for
processed, purs to the ` nan - �e�,re4iiicements' for ,a I PCD . modi'lfcation. and 'to be
_ Zoning Or _di
"Aac.ompli.ance with the d Special Corhibefei al. de's igridtion and all
applicable objectives polici andgoals,".
Condition of,, 53,re required'. the� develol5ffient of : Preliminary Master Plan the'area
. 9, 1 - -
including Parcels 0 and , C,as- well as the; undeveloped ':and uhderdev6loped areas south to Lynch
Creek, west to Petaluma Boulevard. North and north.16 Corona Road.`. n. the City began the
prqpara6on.of ca Soeq`i=fc Plan: for the - Corona Reach, which 'i's n� & ia approk . imat-ely,0110,rniltstretch
of the - Ri'ver to'High. ,10t from, Lynch Creek to Corona
,Road. 'Howeve in 2000, the City Council suspended the Corona Road ; Specific Plan because a"
'comprehensive study of drainage; flooding,. and" transportation need I s could be: accomp
during the 'General Plan: revision pr6cess.,CiwCdunciI Resolution .0.0- &5 directed staff to nrocess,
the Chelsea application for development on Parcels B -And C without the requirement for a,
completed,Corona .Reach Specific Plan.
Pursuant; to Condition of Approval 51- e,, Draft ` Subsequent ent Envirohinental. Ii-n e
-q,-- ,,pact R has
been prepared' Aq evaluate -the potential, 'environmental impacts that, may result from` the
development of the;,Petdluma Village Maxkeftf
p ace� proposal ('Parcels '13 and Q. The-$EIR.,is-
_
informational document "intended to provide the. decision makers with.an objective "impartial
source dHftformation..k nior`I),SEIR(date&-`J'a u
P ary20Q;)js,no longer under consideration and'
,19 Opficablb.lo the current project: d 2002,,DSEfR. has;'dentified,
number of potential , environmental impacts associated withd'Oelopment, of proj ect site. -
Article:,.119 of ,the 'Petaluma. Zoning Ordirtarice, requires PCD' Programs to include Appr6iirriate
office: and - Porn - mercial square -, fbotages, types and locations of use s proposed "to ,'be Included'In
the development and the general development standards.- The PCD Master P I I'an, ' Program adopted
fo.r"thle.�.Petal'uma.F4 Qutlet,VIllage�,,.siaV6d ihat'.permiffed U Par0els 8 and -,. C' would be
ni
"Comer.6 l'
- al uses will the l 'City-'s ex =isting
� retail d I base and a d,,si, Ini"ficahtly to
�the�'Cit S tax, base t b_Y:cap that_-ow - The ap
capturing -local PPI a'*
tfoa
:inc.ludes--spe.6fic devel erit.proposalsIorbbth'; Partels,B and
APPROVAL REQUESTED
•
•
The; applicants are ptoposirig.to deve Parcel,, 8. with. ' buddi-Ags tIoWJ, 14p. to 1 7.1,40.0 square
'feet ofxdtarl space and 923 p4rki-ng, spqcp5, and to develop - Parcel C with - a 1.2- screen movie
Page 4
I theater 36,000 square feet of retails ace and .527 g paces. The project requires the
q . p parkin s
2 certification. -of a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, approval of a modification to the
3' River Oak - s /Petaluma Factory Outlet Village Master Plan Program and,:SPARC approval.
4 ,
5 STAFF ANALYSIS
6
7 The Draft Subsequent:ElR on the Petaluma Village Marketplace identified a number of potential
8 environmental impacts associated with development of the project site that would remain
9 si gm icant and unavoidable. (See Summary of Signi °ficant and Potential Significant Impacts and
10 Mitigations Measures on page ES -4 of the document for a 'complete list of all impacts and
1.1 mitigation measures.)
12
1.3 Potential Impact 7.1. Unacceptable bevel of Service at Petaluma Boulevard North/Washington
is Street. This intersection is projected to experience'ncreased' 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: !) 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
3 Boulevard /Washington Street.,
4
25 Although the mitigation rneasureswouU reduce the impacts to' less than significant, until the
26 improvements are completed °and the language in the General Plan,modifired, the impacts remain
27 significant and unavoidable:
28
29 Potential Impact 7.2. Unacceptable Level of Service on Old Redwood Highway : Segment
0
Includin rp uring the weekday AM peak hour, the roadway segment if projected to
31 continue operating at Ian 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 traffic.
34
nort hbound right turn 3 , at ,th'e Old
35 Mitigation measures include the addi of a second port lane
g y hwa need tobe wide approxi ate m y 4'0 `foot long .
36 Redwood Hi hwa /U S: 101 ramp
t
37 segment
Of Old Redwood Hig y ned between the northbound ramps
owell. Boulevard resulting in 38 intersection and NIcD g ' three continuous eastbound lanes between
39 these intersections'.
40
41 Although -the above mitigation reasures would reduce Potential Impact T.2. to a less than
42 significant level, the impact remains significant and `unavoidable until the improvements are
43 completed.
44
North/Washington Street intersect�on..This intersect isrvlat the Petaluma Boulevard
otential!" Impact Una I
g p rojec ted to continue operating at an
47 unacceptable LOS F under FUTURE conditions with development of the project.
Pa{e 5
1
2
Mitigation measures would be the, same: as those under potential impact 7.1. Again .,although the
3,
rni'tigation measures would reduce the. impacts s to less th`an,.si'gnificani, until the- improvements
4
are completed and the language in the General Plan modified, the impacts remain, significant and
5
unavoidable.
6
7
Potential: Impact 7.7. Unacceptable Level of •Service on Old Redwood High Segment
8
Including Overpass. -The roadway aegment ; is.projected to continue operating at anlmacceptable
9
LOS E under FUTURE conditions (conditions anticipated to be present in the year 20.15) with
10.
development of:the project.
1.1
12
Mitigation Measures •include: 1) - Improvements to the Highway . 101 northbound ramps'
10
intersection (also, a mitigation measure ;for Potential Impact 7.2); 2) Widening of Old, Redwood.
14•
'Highway freeway overpass whereby two; throu in each •direction• would,be ,proid'ed' on
1.5
the overpass.
16
17
Although the. above mitigation measures would reduce Potential Impact 7.7 to a less, than
418
significant level, the impact remains significant and unavoidable until the, improvements are
19
completed.
20
21
Potential_ Impact 8.2. Increased regional emissions..,N&W traffic, generated by tthe project, would.
2.2
increase ;regional emission by amounts greater than the: Bay .Area Air Quality ,Management
23`
District (BAAQMD) significance thresholds:,
24
25
Mitigat on...Measures include: '1) The use of`building design techniques that" reduce area= source
26
eini'ssions 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 Beating; the
28
use, of building materials that facilitate energy conservation; and the use of electric powered
29
land scape °equipment. 2) Measures to reduce automobile trips to reduce,mobile sour0Q 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 fetail services for
32
future employees at the site- provision of on- site,. or nearby daycarefaclties within walking,
33
distance; provision - f convenient bicycle parking for employees and retail customers' provision
3 3
of safe and convenient pedestrian,'and bicycle' access to all uses on `the site,.
3!5
36
+'
Ho.weve, -even with the im 1_emeritation of g ' � g ons
he above rniti i e' ion-al emissions
aton measures region
37
_p
are expected_ to be :greater than the BAAQMD significance thresholds and the impact remains
38
significant and unavoidable.
39
40
.CEQA Section, 1.5091 requires public: agencies to make ohe or, more written findings for: each of
41
the signi'fficant environmental effects 'identifed. in an,ZIR prior to project, approval. The findings
42
must be supported by- substantial evidence in' •the record and the agency must present a 'bh'ef
43
explanation of 'the ,ratiOngle for each finding.
44
45
Where potential environmental impacts have: been ide as significant. and unavoi"dab!le,°
46
CEQA. requires decision- makers, to balance the economic,, legal, social', technolog'cal,.or other
'age 6
,
r l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
I'3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
3
24
.25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
3.8
39
40
41
42
43
•44
t
0
K I
benefits , , of .the' project , against the unavoidable project - related` environmental effects when
determining whether "or' not to approve' the 'projOct. If the specific economic, legal, social,
technological, or other bene'
g' fts'of the .proposed project outweigh the `unavoidable adverse
environmental „effects, then those environmental 'effects may be° co,r si`dered "acceptable ". In
order to approve -a project that will result m,:significant adverse environmental effects identified
in the E'IlR that cannot be reduced to a level of significant Agency: must state
in writing the specific' reasons to support the projecf approval ba's,ed' on the Final EIR and /or
other information in. the record., This is formally' iknown as- a. "Statement of Overriding
Considerations" and is made in `addition to the findings regwired 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.
The Draft Subsequent EIR evaluated three alternatives: The "No Project" alternative, the
"Retail /Office /Hotel" alternative and the "Wetlands Avoidance" alternative, and compared the
environmental effects that might be associated with These 'hypothetical' alternatives with those
associated with the proposed "project.
'Under the "No Project" alternative, no new development would, take place on Parcel B or C. This
.alternative would not be consistent with the approved' PCD Master Plan or with the Special
Commercial General Plan designation„ the extension of.'the existing Riverwalk would not occur
and policies in the Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan would. not be ;implemented.
Under the "Retail /Office /Hotel "' altemative, a total Hof 11`0,0.00 square.feet_of office ,space in
buildings up to four stories in height would be. developed' on Parcel B and a total of 137;500
square feet of office space and A. :square 'foot, 100 room hotel in buildings up to three
stories would be built. on Parcel C. This4ltemative would be consistent" with the approved PCD
Master Plan, and the Riverwalk would be extended to Parcels B and C. This alternative would
have the greatest visual /aes'thetic, impacts 'due to the proposed building heights, but would result
in. reduced vehicle trip generation that, would not exceed `the> thresholds of significance
' g ' ur p Y � D h office vacancy rate and a deve l op ment n t is
established for regional air ollutants b . °'the BAA" M ,
p hysically feasible there crentl e theadeuelo merit of o Y e in
„Y _ g
Y
ex�s s office space and a hotel at this
business travel and tourism
and' , therefor.,,, p ,
location may not be,econoni`ivally,feasilble
The "Wetlands. Avoidance" altemaf ve would eliminate the' proposed 36,000 square .feet of retail
building area on' pare _ ter !approximately '250 feet to "the northwest in
el C and .relocate the thea
order. to avoid the, 0 33 -:acre wetland area. ,Parcel „B would be developed with 173,400 square, feet
of retail space. Th
p „ lfe rnative would be consistent with, the approved ?,CD 1Vlaster Plan, and. the
is a
Riverwalk could be-exte'nded to Parcels B and C.
Based on the evaluation in the'DSEIR, the `.`.No Project ",alternative would.`be regarded as the
environmentally superior alternative. However, this alternative is not consistent with the General
Plan land use designation.and would not meet any of the Project objectives.
`-Page 7
1 Under CEQA, when the "No Projeet" ;alternative has been identified as'the "environmentally
.
2 superior alternative, it is necessary to identify another alternative that could b c�detennined to be
3 the- environmentally, superior :alfematiye in °the absence of the "No:,, Project" alterrn'ative. In this
4 regard; the: ``Retail / Office /Hotel ":'alternative would be regarded as the environmentally superior
5 alterrative due to, the-lack of any significant; unavoidable, environmental impacts ,associated with
6 this development. Th proposed project and the "Wetland Avoidance" altetnati:ve wou'Id. each be
7 expected to have significant, and, unavoidable. adverse impacts on regional air quality, whi e the
8 "Retail /Office /Hotel alternative would not.
10 PU;BUIC 'COMMENTS
11
12 A Notice. of Availability of an ,E_1R and Public Hearing was published in the .Argus.,Courier: arid
13 notices were sent to residents and propert=y owners within 500 feet of the subject property.
1.4
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. _
1.7
t8 ENVIRONMENTAL. RE VIEW'
20 Section 151162 Of the CEQA guidelines °requ_ires the preparation of a Subsequent EFR when
22 ert�_�f ed g as orn lete�The previous IEIR` no t
confern" laced he Bevel th e time the previous "EIR was
_p p p opment of retail, restaurants;
ces, offices„ and financial institutions on the 7,2 +/ site The' KI)
23 hotel /motel and related sere' i '
25 ParcelrA 11 Howeve_ra uses for Parcels Band C awe�etnot pr o p osed
c ficallr known tan outlet stores on
g - p rovided
a s
; be anal zed thoroughly. As re 'viousl stated.in'this,report, condition.of a d, therefore, could
26 not
g' " a t r Plan Program for the -River Oaks /Petaluma Factory Outlet
27 the on mal PCD 1VI
.28 required't(h'e.appropri_ate' environmental review for Parcels B::and C prior to spro`ect .revi ew:;,
29
3.0 P ursuant , t o CE, Q ,_ Guidelines Section 15,082, a Nofi'ce of Preparation (NOP) ,advising° that ,an
A Gui
p e and/or trustee state agencies: After the NOP„ these a encfor distribution `to
32 res onsiblb be re aced for the ro ect -was sent to the State Clearin house
31 " °was t
g g `ices had 30 days in
33 -which to comment on' how, in terms of scope; and contei t DEIR. should treat; environmental,
.34 information related to the agency's. statutory responsibilities.
35
36 Once a DEIR is;prepared, it must be routed through the State Clearinghouse to all.Tesponsible
37 and /or trustee agencies. The agenei`es have 45 calendar days in ,Vhich to. comment on 'the OUR.
38 At the same ;time the DEIR is +sent t'o they, Ate Cfeari - house,, the public'rnust,be nofifi�ed that the ."
39 DEIR is available for review: A notice °was: published in the Argus Courier on, November 27`h
40 'and sent to residents and propert -y owners within 500 feet of the subject property. The 45 -day
41 review peHod.began December 2 and will corifinue to. January 16, 2003.
42
43 The purpose of. the December 1.0 hearing is to recewe, public input on the adequacy and
44 completeness, of the environmental' eval iation. presented Subsequent" EIR. Once; the
45 public hearing on the Draft Subsequent, EIR has been formally closed,, all written 'and verbal
.Pane; 8
Y
c omments -received on the nt wi +ll be corrlpiled, and' responses to those comments
11 draft docurne
2 wl'll be presented In the Final Subsequent EIR.
3
5
6 Staff is recommending, that the Planning Commission take public .testimony regarding the
7 adequacy of the Draft Subsequent `Environmental Impact Report on the 'Petaluma. Village
8 Marketplace project, and continue the public hearing °to the meeting of'January 14, 2003. At the
9 close of the January public hean'n direct staff to
, g,�- prepare responses all written and verbal
10 comments received during the public review period.
12 After all comments are re ceived o
,n the DSEIR ; ,the'Planning'Commission should take comments.,,
13 on the project itself . and then forward a recommendation to, the City Council regarding the '
14 adequacy of the SEIR and 'a, recoinrnendation•re.garding the pproject. According to Petaluma's
1s Environmental Review Gu.i
delines;, the Planning Commission may request to review the Final 11
16 SEIR before making a recommen e dation to th City Council: `However the SEIR must ultimately
17 be certified bythe City Council: Appropriate finding and`,proje` t of approval will be
18 included in the January 14, 20 staff report.
19
20 ATTACHMENTS
21
2_ A. Draft Subsequent Environmental. Impact Report (prev,iously delivered to Planning
3 Commissioners)
24 B. Analysis of Compliance ,with.Mitigation Measures'
25 C. PCD Program
26, D. Full size plans
27
28
29
30
31 Ochelsea \12 10 'PCstaffreport DSEIR
Page 9