Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda 7.A-Attch08 06/21/2004
Page I of 3,1' Crump; Katie ®" From: Eiieen.,korris [eil . eennno rris 1 aearthli'nk.net] Sent: Sunday, October 26i 2003;1:46 PM To: citymg-(, Mayor; Keith - CaneVaro@ci.peta1urna.ca.us;- mike4pet@4b1:LC0M; redhaWksgsonic.net; Bryant' bynihi�fn.cotn;,oi�taluma'mik*e@aol'.com ptorhat t - adl..corn @bi��yahtrn Subject: ArChle,lsea EiR To: the Petaluma City Council Re: Chelsea project EIR From': the' So ' noMa, County Living Wage Coalition Contact: Eileen Morris,,. 781,-%68 The Living Wage Coalition believes that approval of the Chelsea pr6ject: will result in at least one, significant environmental impact that has not been noted in the EIR---housing overcrowd rther, M;or'e; w&r,bek,eve,that one aspect offhedprojpct's 6biedfives, "To promote the public necessity; convenience 'and general: welfare ._�'.! �ispot:�clbqUately, advanced by the' proposed,', project or addressed in the exploratidh of'p'r�ojpct alter I native& Cost to city services must inevitably grow WhqnIow-wage employment grows=a cost, that detracts from the general welfare and w ill not necessarily be offset by'inQreas.ed'tax revenues. Housing, Overcrowding' Housing overcrowding caused` by a development is consic(eired a significant environmental impact, We. believe that.'thei treatment of this issue in al I l.iterations of . the. Chelsea EIR has been cursory and insufficient. The preparers state. in "Peta lama Village Marketp . lace FSEIR'C&R," "The Draft Subsequent EIR does not speculate on fbturjp. wages, that may be offered by, unidentified tenants at the Project, and does not any dis,6utsiop of socib�kono I L . j - Ir - mic effects associated, with low -wage employrnent,-as f i� is, beyond the' scope of an Environmental Impact Report" (page 329).- We differ 'with the,prieparers on this issue, and believe that CEOA d6mands a consideration of the housing overcrowding effects of-this,pr9ject. According to land -,use cons u Ita nf& Jones,.a nd Stokes',periodi'cal C'LQA updates based on recent court dedisiohs(availahle at www.jone's,b-nds'toke's.com,:),,; "Where'aphysiqzfl change ,.is caused by, economic .or sQc1aI,,effbcts of the, pr�bjoct the,�physical change may be 1 9 regarded as a significant Qffect'in"the same manner as. any other- ph' ysi.cal 'ch"a'n-ge resulting from the project. Alternatively, economic and social effects of a''p'hysica'I change . `� � may be used to determine that, thaPhysical change is a significant effect-on'thb environment. If the physical change -causes adverse economic or social effects ,on people, thbs6'adverse effects may be, used: asa,factor'in determining-wh',ether, the physical change is significant. For example, if the project'Would cause overcrowding of'a public facility and the overcrowding causes an: adverse effect on people., the overcrowding would be considered as a significant effect."' 10/27/2003 ^-r-r.^CHNAE_=N_r 8 a Page 2 of 3 A lead agency shall make its decisions, based on -substantial eviden,ce, the Jones and. .Stokes' update continues., "Substafftia-1 evidence shall include facts,, reasonable as'sumptions, pred'icaied on facts, aild.JaXpert opinion supported byJacts."' The Livin-g"V-Vage Coalition has presented the.City'.&'Petaluma with substantial evidence, that the Chelsea project twill, result in'housiog overcrowding'. Incleed,,pa'rt of our.substantial evidence comes ,from ,a rep.ort,commi§sidnod by the city of Petaluma, in partne`rship With other l6cal governments 4he Jobs '24608ing'Lilnlkage Fee study. That report: fi,'hd,s that low_ wage e.mp:loyme,nf contributes, to our' housing shortage. In,additibq,-,we_ ',hqye -provided,th e, city, with two reports, which we. attachag'ain to these comments—"A'Living \A/age:for Son.oma.`County,":an'd "Affordab'lb,H au s,i.hg for Everyone. - Solutions to Sonoma County's Housing Crisis." In "A Living, Wage for -Sonoma Gounty,"drafted bySamantha:,T6plitzky,�, a rieselrdh&frrpm UC Be'rkel'iey, there is ample evidence lb make a_h assumption. ",predicated: on facts, that, the jobs created by Ch.e.l�sea`s now'deV011',boment W. ll�,riot pay .a. wage-sLifficient to allow workers, to find decent, un-cro#Lih Santa Rosadedhousing. VVbfkers� at th e.existfng :developmentCh,e:l,seaand ,*,at ,a similar bp-'Ont' Y m de el,were surveyed, and it found W at the'av,'ge ..era worker was an adulfbfeadwinner�.not a tL-en, oi�'secondary.wag,e earner,as, r 11 1 _predicted: in theit,.ElRbefore you. The median wage was. $9_57t"per hour (pages,28 to -30.of the -report). This wage, which common sense and; " reas,onabfe assumptions pre-dicateclan facts" urge. us to, believe will prevail: in the new part,of'the, project,, is, woefully i.ha'00qqate to al,lbw a worker to afford,decent h.ou8ih,g:: It i's,o reasonable assumption —indeed, a forego,rie conclus'ibn""wtthat workers 'will :crowd 'into ,units .because they will earn wages cbm'parable,,to • wO`rRbrs'in tirnilair positions. The aogtt,of rental,.h o-u-sJhg a- n.0 housing ownership are:exorbitantly high in Sonoma Counfy., Among, UGB researcher . earqher I Nari kheo's,find:ings'in "Affordable: Housing for :Everyone," it the distressing fact- that IdW-wage jQ . bs i , n thesetrviceand retail industries account for 44 percent' 8 all 11 new jobs created in- Sonoma CountybetWeen 199.5'and.2,Q02- anO that 57 Percent of'all Sonoma, Cbubty�wo' rk e-rs-, ear'ne- cl.,Iesstha(n .$42-,;50 per hour. She lists a1o�tal of 752',180. low wage joopportunities. Us representing 46 percent of all Ibca'I employment Opp unities. s neo .':None of the jobs Iited �providb wages that are high enough to afford the (I .,bedroom apartment rent of $ 82,.3"(page 15, "AffordableHousihg for EVetVbhO.")-. ti Again, the facts linthis, report, le,ad''us to.the reasonable assumption that..helsea's project ' will result in, further housing overe-crowding. According to a 20'02 report from 'Pep perdihe University's DaVe,n.po.tt.:,Ihsii,fpte,'�'The ,consequences of overcrowding im. a I C� t two 0rirharY:aretit-- ,(1) th.e,.qua-lity of life f6r California's fa''m i lies -- especially for 6hildrehy,— is- adversely degraded,.and (ZJ the d6te h o ratio n :of critica'l!'infrast'ru.cture:in the state accelerates much faster; since s,ig,,nificant . ly more Ore people, Move into nei.g:hborhoocls not I desidriedto-'a-:ccommQd,atp-hig,h6rde'rnsity condifi6ns.-This constrains a'commu,niiy.s.capacity to,pr,Qvid-ethe .necessary Ievelofpublic services such as. wafer, sewer, w - er, roads', parks fire, ppli'rbe, etc." Promotingpublic 'necessity,'co.n.ven-ience'and general welfare 1012712663' Pa��e 3 of 3 VV&believe the city has a right under its police powers to deny,d.evelopment that will result in significant costs to the public, sector.'We direct you to the two attached fact sheets on community,impact reports fora I,00k at how a City can determine how much low wage employment impacts the public sector. Finally, iif you as a Council' do decide to approve'the project despite its significant environmental impacts,'we.request that you weigh the consideratio.ns.you might believe to be "overriding' —increased sales tax,dollars and convenient shopping for Petaluma residents —with the actual costs of low wage employment to city, county, state and federal government. We believe'that.,under°condition 51 of Resolution 91.-136; you can safely charge this cost to the developer. Hand Delivered „ 4 "Housing for All: Solutions to Sonoma County's Housing 'Crisis,'"by Nari Rhee,'doctoral candidate;' Department of Geography; Graduate Studen.t,`Research,&, Center for Labor Research and Education, University of California at Be,rkeley,,; published in 2003 by New Economy Working Solutions and Service Employees InternationaI pion Local 707. "A Living Wage for; Sonoma County," by Samarntha. Tepl tz,, MA, 'UP Berkeley; published in 2002 by the Sonoma Counfy"Living Wage Coalition. ® Attachments .: ..A Model Community Impact; Report," by Jessica Goodheart, :co- director of research for the Los -Angeles Coalition fora New';Economy, published.by"the Los Angeles Coalition for a New Economy. . "Community Impact Reportfract Sheet," published by the'°Soufh'Bay AFL-GIO Labor Council. b 10/27/2003 i Son onlil''Co'l-I'll"ty , aird the Lzving,,� W,age: A Study of the -Impact of.a (Living IYAge. Ordinance on the Cities'! of Santa" Rosa, and Petaluma A Report on the Benefits and Impacts ol'a Livinc, Wage Ordinance on the Cities of -Santa Rosa an'd"PeTaluMa ®. August 2,002 Samantha Tepjitzky, M.A. UC Berkeley Cefif-erfor Labot Research and Edu'6tibn Page I In the midst bf,a dramatic economic decline, coin In11nities across Califorilia.rire cl resti'oning hoiv tangi'rble community needs call be better met' by the b,illioiis cif public d0hars invested i-n sports cuin,plexes, retail inal'1's, ind,iisti iad, parks and transportatibri infrastrti'&urc..A, iicw tool, the, (Cornrriuniry Impact l ep`iort„ has, been . developed co erirhower'comrlri:iniaies to. ensiti-e that new development meets their'neeel's. Such a tool is essential for Poli'cymaker cciniriiuiii.ty residents and developers iriteivsted'iri a process that secures community input .d 1 l he City of San Jose;, through the Redevelopment. Agency, has invested_ roughly $1.7 billion in downtower re0italization and other redevelopment project areas. The irnpacts of this investnient have been mixed. The need. for- the CIR can be illustrated by a review of several projects for wlii'ch the availability of such a report 1%fould have: been helpful -lessening or eliminating a negative impact on. the community. One example is the subsidized United Artists Theater complex off',uf Third Street in downtown San Jose. Research an era uates the efie.c.t,af clevelopinerrt projects during The purpose of" the,. the iri'iti vl,,phi ses ol'a prc.ajeet. C.1R i> ,;to enable 'San 'Phis dociinient_p,rese ltsan Ooverview of the Corr_mrunit}' ,J.ose"resld'ents to Impact IZeperct (CIR). As Me F name suggests, the purpose c>,f'"' the CIR is to eriable San Jose residents to evaluate the effects of' publicly fi.tnded development on the comniunit.y: Such an evaluation would contain evaluate the effects of p.ia)l'iely funded dev'.01opment an the c,()'171I7 amity. econornic and social data of concern to those�directlyaffecufd;',by'a p10ject the broader cominuni.g,, as well.,as to the develop:iers rind"`cffy leaders. I�t voiild be,prepared iii,addition to the standard erivironmental review. A CIR policy Would rnake siac}i a r& on a cornponerit.ofall develbpnaerit-projects rectlNing public firnds in ,San jose. ................................................ a............................ THE SOUTH BAY AFL-CIO LABbk CCUNCIL completed prior to the project illtis'trated the high demand for t igh,tly eritertainmerit in the area and projected significant profits from the clevelopinent. Ijowever, severe financial losses f( ll,o1villo- the ope'nirig of the c6rrrplcx led [lie theatre to close its door.t Tess than six years after ,the deyelopmen[ agreement was approved, leaving the city with roughly $5 million in losses. Looking,backw<rrds in time, it is appar;ent_Lhat the planning process failed to ae.curatel;y evaluate the San Jose retail niark`et, and demographics oil the sup-ouiiding area. It (lid not. recognize the difficulty UA would experience in seciiring,thic midst potentially ppo,pular films frorn distributors. It ailed to seci,ire: public input o'n the projeci. including residents' ;likelihood of attending a new clowntown theatre. This failure to gathe,njun,d. hiccirporate comprehensive public mptit injured the project's chance of success. Another useful exanr;ple of'where a C;'IR nriglit have helped idenii'fy' significant impacts to the COMMUNITY IMPACT REPORT ........................... ......... city and'Ahe.c,orninuii'ify can be seen in the devOoolti-enk.t.0f. dle sall Jose- ArOha, In this Case, the RDA faflkl to Observe or-i-ne.asure tl-,ie'adverse effects ofjbe p)-oject o�rijob,qwlli.tv or pill_)'lic .services before granting the million subsidy, As, Arena deyelo'prheht crea ied 'a Popular entelldi'11,111'CrIt VC111-le downtown and generate,d approximately mia -oxi tely 520jobs and a,:demancl , for roii,61ily'J3_5•7 hOLIS'ing,iinits' Howover, clue to the lack. of provisions in tile de\/el-oprifeilL agre.e.m6ilt less t'hawa living wage-, and fc-w-,were eligible, for Asa I . eslilt' riew employment ei-eal.-&.(I,aii,iii-crt.ased need f0yaffor.dable housing, a greater reliance on publicly funded health services f0r -the &iinsiired amid Ii 2i�ddtional dernand'for'N'LIM,rolls u _.e other forril's of'public assistance to IoNv wage lVorking, families. C Q'M, P'O N ENT S The CIR d�,-scljibes conditions: in ao eXJ..5JJrl 9 C�qrrlrlluillity land est'ifflatcs the effects cif proj)osed cleye'lopmenCo,n that cOmmunity. it covers potexitial, e.-ffects oFal:cU' vclopment in six areas: ernplorrierlt, hatising, 1:.)vibl.ic sector finance, sn - I art arid e-riviro, runleritid quallly:. I't-opens with. a neap of the project area as picture oEthe Colnnlun'ity that'liVes. there. Then, bas(.d oft infori-riati'Ori -liroVided boob 1)), the. d'eve-16per and the, city, it describes effects that'a l7wo.jeculnay, have. For example, a CIR rnay'htlJ5 airsiver the followling kinds of questions: 0 1:S th'el-_)roject likely to be economically viable? .................................... A To what extent aloes a Project Contribute to tFie local tax bdse.t; Does` the project add 'to the tax base or move .Parts'of th,e tax'base 11'1116hi'one site, to, IVIiat public �:OSLS SLICII as the COSt'S ()f subsidies or infrastructure—*,will'be r I eq:Ll i % red for the completion of the project? Dries the pro"ect�add ,obs:tp die CONIM1.11lity? I j _ If !io., what kind ofjobs, i-p- terms of wages and benefits? Does,the proj'ect:i.norease the nee.dTor, additional ho.usIiagj_n f,'he,.regiuv? Is the need for mArket rate, or al 1'6,rdabl : e','housil-ig? Does the proje.a-belp'm eej --Ii,e reg'iori's needs for housiri 9. • esthe project providecbm rri:unrty. amenities -,.5uch as j-)a'r,16, 'Cli'llde'are centers, B E -N. EF I T "S' Use of the CIV\ has potcri,tial, advalltages for clecision-makers'* commun) ty leaders:', 'cl-evel-opers, needed.9 infor-l'T'�.�loll d in ol-I b-fe docuent, it avc). i ds, the:, ) neeclless, delays associated_ with. late ,requests for, addi't,lanal data. Byrequi . rihg a.coiffpreI!e.l'lS'lLVe overview of the p7pj ect, it, assd,res the. communi , ty fl'i'at,(Ic.-,c-isloii--i-iiakers will have fb141f*ormation WIfelithey exe,r-cise'tl;ielii,j4ctgii-ieiit.'By proVid.itig. a, solid_base of,faas.:l t Focus (-.Ieba.t.e -on, q,onc);e'to issues f6r wl-iich',win-Nvin solutions izarli be, formulated: .................. :...- - ............................ .......... ................ ....................... ........ .................... THE SOUTH BAY AFL—CIO LABOR COUNCIL • Windsor, Anne -kom: Jehsen; Deanna Sent: Friday, May 07; 2004 11'A AM, To: Windsor, Anne; White, George' Subject: FW: Balls, Not Malls! -----original message ----- From: Bluespin [mailto:bluespin@earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, May 07, 2004 11:03 AM To: CDD Subject: Balls Not Malls! Dear esteemed Planning Commission members, The recent Argusl Courier articles on the fate of•the Corona Reach indicate that the drama surrounding the Outlet Mall's,Big Box store expansion.there has' reached a critical juncture. I was dismayed -to read in John Jackson's article that .the Chelsea Group owes the city over a million dollars and is trying to manipulate the situation ,to insure expansion approval. On the other hand, the proposal by David Keller, and less directly by Mayor Glass, that we construct ballfields and:a park in„this upper river ecology'ra'ther than expand the design failures inherent in'the'Outlet Mall complex makes perfect sense from a variety of angles. laBig,`Box expansion will add, additional traffic to our streets. This is bad enough, but ere's more. Wests_ide parents currently travel east -west streets to East Side ballfields. As Keller points out, current residential development means thousands more westsiders. Corona Reach 'has some of the' only flat land suitable -for ballf°ields left on the West Side. Placing ballfields there wou_id diminish much unnecessary east -west traffic. A big box expansion and the accompanying freeway overpass tonsaructi-on would demolish and pave over the upper river area with its ancient oaks and graceful bend. In contrast, ballfields in the Corona Reach would.encourage appreciation of our Petaluma River, improve water quality, prevent downst-re,am flood'-ing and provide a needed Northwest Petaluma Park area. You, know you have hit on a good design when it solves ,mul,t-iple 'probl'ems at once. Keller sneaks for many concerned c,itizensi who agree with ballf,i'elds and a park in the Corona Reach. Ev.en'Ch'elsea benefits: sports parents wbu'ld,undoubtedly- stop_ into the now isolated and underperforming shopping area due to their proximity to the fields. Let's keep new retail centered .in more logical areas like the, Kenilworth site, as Mayor. Glass suggests. This site is ranked second in a list'of desirable sites for new retail versus Corona Reach's- eighth place ranking. We can reduce tra`fflc,,. increase community enjoyment and ;keep our river, beauti-ful by constructing needed•p'arks'and�ballfields in one of the only available,sit'es left for them. Sincerely Scott Hess cott Hess Photography Walnut Street aluma, CA 94952 707-765-0580 htt'://Www.scotthessphoto.com APR 2 2004 NAAYOR 0 A.pr.1.9 2004 Petaluma Council City of Petaluma APR 20 2004 Petaluma,Ca.9495'? MAYOR OR DearPetaluma otlnci:l, Members: C i and m} .fa:rily want to express :our suppport I'or the approval of the, Petaluma Marketplace, to: ,go 'fonvard to generate. kt,1es. and property tax revenue to ' our service needs level to make road and infrastnicture improvementsand will priivid-e ,recreational opportunities for youth `which is needed, Petaluma Village Markeiplace uJiM provide eiiip'l�yfYietit opport- unities which is badly needed •far head' of household and secondary ,jobs as well. 'We -residents «gill 'have additional shoppingchoices to avoid driving to other areas to shop '! Many of my friends like to shop in the Petaluma Marketplace be- cause of the open atnaosphere� and the easy access parking and so many choices to shop. They have all the crest brands! Keeping more sales tax ila Petaluma will increase funds needed to assist each of us to enjoy feet living in Petaluma! In closing I and my family and friends urge You the City Mayor and Council members to support the Petaluma Village Marketplace Project and' -fill. theneeds of the people of Petaluma! Since-ly Mrs:Ruth Feldman and famiiy N, Ruth F=� • " "�.. !!sr .:'r'1019`RanchoLniJoDr,-; Petaluma; CA 94952, �l I APR 2 12004 Apr 13 04 12:48p a d ma n i s"t, r"A to r (707Y 762-9524 P :'I a I Petaluma City Council Fax 707 778-4498 River 6cks/0eteilume Village "Marketplace I am not iable tw0tend'the Council Meeting to express my opinion but as a homeowner in an area affected: by this AeVildpmenf J am r6t in favor of any devilopment,in tKe flood pla in. While+,the development, plans indicat e,possible floong would uld be mitigated with,gareful - . — : - * - - I .p6nningJam not trustful of -that conclusion. Admittedly, it could'.be on emotional. reaction to prior events with flooding, 4 bof herslrhle.11to,no, end th(.w this project could undo what hot been accomplithedby the f lbo& control project, This area, 'the % yromar6a, has waited a very longtime to f eel. secure. in heavy rains., Once something -is brokenjt, takes many years, manylagencies,,,cind much more money than anyone has to'put it right. 'T clon , t thi,nk"we, the citiie.ns of.Petalluma,t6n afford to challenge Mother Nature and lessen the effectiveness, of the f lood control" project., That b6in said I also havelbilowed the -stud' (6� the sales, control - . 1 -1 1 9 !,1 -_ -, - - study y tax: leakage'with. considerable. interest'. boughtour new .car;. furniture, appliances in 'PetTdiumd,-,h.6'w--e-v-eiwf'-or,tlofkl'tq',sh'c!es,drid',Mohyother 'things, W`eshoplout'ofthe,area, either Santo Rosa, Rohnert Park or,o_n-lih9,,'7his hPus ghc_14 is -fully suppdrtive:of 9�ddifjdno-1 shopping and choices -,for shopping, qst NOT in the flood plain. Phyllis Huffman Sharrow 823 Madison.Street, Petaluma 707'763=8342 • MAR, 0 ' 2004 Clr February _? 5, 2;004 • ��r'�Jf;r. Honoi-able`h4'ay6r!aiid' Members of the City Council, r. MAP 0 �JC1 City of Petaluma N En flish Street. Petaluma CA 94952 �� ►� Dear Mayor Glass and Councili Members, The Board of Directors of the Petaluma Area Chamber 'of Commerce supports the application of the Petaluma Village: Factory Outlets, toyexpand its operation adjacent to its can Pt. site on'Petaluma Blvd':North:'The Pf1CC. Board encourages. the City of Petal•urria'to advance th's project without delay. The Board also'urges the'use of the City's retail leakage -study in conjunction with the development of this property, recognizing ithat'the study is a dynamic, evolving,doc6" merit. The support of`tliis prQposal. is in accordance with- the:Board -;s policy regarding long -ran' e economic planning for the, City of'Petaluma and the curbing o.f'retail ]leakage from our community. Yours truly, Onita Pellegri,ni Chief Ex-ecuti've••Officer -'NOV 24 2003 !1 i� fJ Ord. l 1 ;J.: RECEIVED NOV Z 12003 .' Petal'urna. City Council I t English St- MAYOR Petaluma,, CA 94952 181 Dear, Council Members-- Novel' er,l..' 2003. My family and-1, as,residents,of Petailuma,,would like to request you not to. let the characters. of -this township change - keep'it Two i .9 _w important points worth, ,emphasizing include; Please reject permits to expand the outlet mall or any future mall strip mall' sty- styled e d&velopment, Big.Box,gtor&& and outlet mall pNpqnsion equal :the demise ofour historic!.' - downtown Jewel, a dramatic, increase in traffic congestion, and increase, the probabi�fity- of 'flooding • Pleasekeep the,c'harkter,of Petaluma intact - by reviewingnot only the, environmentaLimpact§'but- also: wheffiei the proposal's serve.Petaluma'-sYalue§ and goals: We would appreciate. it if you keep us informed on the progress of these: points. Fefeshteh KUJ"06ry Home Address- �520 Haw.kDrive Petaluma, CA, 94954 Yours faithfully, Aft-K-740ry, Ph.-D; L y C�- P, t�C�Aj bg 3ox Cn Rft&�( oli/AcN, cc, C prEit(y OCJ )cx 4cft-s-,, C(h-r-f-,S nu 41� chj b -c& G r�j ktces , , 'L �j T� ct Bo 7H RECEIVED NOV 2120013 MAYOR CA ql�[41�14 Petaluma.City Council November 17, 2003 11 ,English St.•„ "Petaluma., CA 94952 R.E.C:E'IVEN NUV .19.2003 MAYOR Dear City"Council, I steadfastly support maintaining our historic dowritbwn in •keeping' with, its character, rejec,iing permits to expand the outlet mall or any future simi'iar styledeveloprrient inchiding;strip,ri ails. Large chain stores: and,mall "ex pansion'threaten the social and econ'om'ic •,Jabili`ty of our downfown area. I, support• the council reviewing; the envirorimenial' mpacts of any future develo,prnent and whether the proposals serve- - Petaluma",s goals andvalues. Sincerely; Richard A. Moeller- 5,05 Fair, Sl. Petaluma, .CA 94952). I e I � ; w �:�1 ,,'` (� .r ��'?!i7'L��/1;L3'L'�,Y�'l-�' �'7•�7' ��`"d'�'~�'L�' ?tru'p? ��''.n--�`���..ry� 4j� v�'Pr (fiYC�Z''}" ti�71 rv7" (1,ti^.2��Y' `�-r�a�--�r,,�1 � �i'` �c��Y,►z,'r' �-.�C� •f�'�,,-r�l-�*u� %�G''v (��t, f�.kr7ZL�';.� 7�7,?'�?.c-G7�� ����';�3"2'1 C1=��!' ',Z't%??2�' (�yh' �''? ����� ,rv" �.��.,t�^ :1� �•r� ��.�� .,�,..�,. ;17 fur ZT L bOldW . £OOZ 0 AON 1 I J Judith E. WilliaMs - RECEIVE® 2 Kazen 'Way, Petaluma CA 94952 NQiI 1 9 2003 MAYOR November 17, 2003 x Petaluma. City .Council 11. English Sf'.; Petaluma, CA 9495.2 I, am; very concerned about the prospect of an 'expansion to the;outlet .mall, in Petaluma. I requesUhat you reject permits to expand this: malt' orany'future mall/strip. mall styled development, BigrBox stores_ and out mall expansion equal the demi se of out historic downtown jewel; a dramatic increase in traff'c congestion, and increase the,probabi'Tity of flooding It; is vital lyJ mportant to keep the character of Petaluma intact; .by'reviewing not' only the environmental' impacts. but also whether the proposals serve Petaluma''§ values and goals. I would appreciate; it if you would keep me iriforined of any action the City Council takes on these issues. Sincerely, ` . Judy lliams 0,3 0 /At ►yes t �s i �i�2-r�u is5� 1 RECEN 2003 47� DEC}J ' Pets was pl�usz �-(/� fir'-h„� riti�✓a�fa✓ l e;�'ii, f uv�-N<1"�1/ �✓any f�,,y� ww�l�stnP n-,�'!l but, P`v,rLe.Ss '��wr lG yV�it/ Mr. 6 I!1rs. Mark Abdilla C 831 WesteAve: (JI ` l� Petaluma. CA 9495225d7 RE" To whom itmay concern At the."Petaluma City Counc 11,, DIEC, 0 5: 20-00 As a new resident of the city of"Petaluma I've been .impressed with the care,that the. city councit'has,given to the old historic 'buildings ' in town.. I feel it, would.- be a,detriment toifie city, if we continued' to.exp and. on the already perfect "little town atmosphere.. We -really don't need anymore strip malls.- Let the little ,guy have. a, chance at making: a Hk.forh-ilmself with, th&,sftivall, businesses we already have in town. They are out fi m'tittle jewels I- of our historic downtown. ' l::' And ,to,ake:inafers-;worse, the -',al -ready thick traffic through town. g would get ten, times worse. -Not to '- forget the environmental impacts on the, oity, thei possibil-Ry of more flooding an the impact itcould'.have. o"fithe Petaluma R',i,,v6r*. Let"s keepour values, and goals in ,perspective. --It wouldbe a'sad day. if Petaluma :didn't have the small town. -charm ore.. Keep, the people of Petaluma -arm anym informed on the progress of these issues. Signed -4 conc-erned,c-itizen. 0 • 7LV pre5ef,v,e- U41 LL 5 4 aY cued T/Y�," Ile", C. A-arCLC41ev i/t A)L&k, P,-p a's e- do Pl&- '0, &r- ewl w wk) 5- ie 50c-("al aLd ee) k- c 71) C'". ail 0 w- 5 u4e-, Tlt-z dc� ta 1/1'e. e�Axic& Oi a�L L d 055 CzC5 ah wkpwie cc, /a/, Pe f�o- 'Pz'lA. �53 TRACY LADD 1.653 MADEIRA CIRCLE PETALUMA, CA 94954 December 1, 2003 REC-1EIIVED DEC 0 3 2003 fviAYO R Petaluma City Council I I English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Dear City Council Members: I am writing to you as a concerned Petaluma resident who wants to. make sure that Petaluma does not lose its downtown small businesse"s,and atmosphere to large malls and Big Box stores. Please vote to keep. the character of,Petaluma intact, by reviewing not. only the environmental impacts but:also whether the proposals serve Petaluma"s values and goals. Please keep me informed regarding the progress on this issue: Thank you, Tracy La d f AAoc rc, November .2,0 , '2003 Peta.lu,ma City Council, 11 E,,nl,g [isih Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Dear Petaluma City Councfl Members, : f , A I .'RI50' b:E:.& 18 2003' ciTY MAN -;-- Please -keep our-c;ity ch:armi'ngl We,do not, want any "Big Box 'stores or strip mall dovetopm-eln-t-s to be bUilt, e*bi * in: i Petaluma. The tax income in' these, -- retail,ors, doe'8 not.;-outwei,gh, the detrimen-t to ,the city, (io: need to compete with increased :. as d,traffic flooding, hoflo mention Making , notP,et,a Petaluma uma ' "tacky''!);we do ho Roh,nert Park. Petaluma fesiden.ts are attracted by, the character andamb,ience- -of otfrJantastibi Gity.' please * don ruin, ths,. Please ,ke ' ,e , p us informed about de.veloprnent in Petaluma., Tha- k yo,.U.l Kim, & Rick SusteK i �57 Rosamond. Street Petaluma, CA. 94954 C C. ����� (JL/N.!/L'VVV 11 V1 :1 VV JI JJ�.V ✓� _ -�� r`� r„�� ,.•- • LAW OFFICES OF • ISMiAN GAFFNEY 370 (;;tend Ave #5 (510) 891-9592 Phone Oaklsn4'CA 94610 (510) 891-9380 FAX - FAX MEMO TO: PeUd maiCity.Cotmcil 707-7784419 Pcwyma.city Cleriniiagk' 701-778-4420 tl E B 0 5 Z004 Pewuma Pl rlDepartment.707-778-4498 DATE: February5,2004j UM'Mllwli �!evClur�r1ew1 Jt1'ANIMtiV RE: Petalarm Vffte MlarkitpLce -Project rand Subsequent >EBR PAGES TO FOLLOW: 20 !C¢NFIDEN'IIA1J Y NOTICE , y., TluA doczrmcat contntos iu fvtaaatsoc:bdongang "to ehe:;senda which is legally p,rtvtle$ed I�►c informotion is ilntinded only for the usr,of thi! '' indirkk ad ocend" Warned above. if jou ate -not tbe'inte4ded'ioc ieng you am hereby notified that any disclostire_copying;:ilistriliutibn, oc.the:taDiia�g,ofiafl action inseliance n the contents �9 � � hcloo�ac etsictly�t �ba'fcd., IE pvu have�ec�etred"t3iia, orinsfnission in error,' p3ease of thu tclecopied informs ii wn no - the t one. to for'ert un of: the o docn t ko me_ A Fcbnrary 5, 20N Coximr t'Re: PeWigno Village MatkctpLece Project and Subsequent EIR VVUW ZOLIQ 11 :01 0I:UV7I 7?Ou [7 The' 'SEIR IF0094a In';'10de an Accurmlz,Stablzaad , FimAe'?r9'j:e0,Pescrip6Djm !undeiCEQA,,inaccurate; stable a,nd;finite project.descripti ivanessential clement ofan infonnefivieand legally, suf66"t,"Elk. Chapter I'OUthe,SEKL:err(idM "Project Description and Setting," defines ibe projeci,as 31' 1 B19onsistirig Of 5 retail structures OyeT 113,400, square feet) and Parcel C (consistingofa 41,000 sqtiamfodt 12 screen, 24QO sea diovie,theater; a 369000square foot retail structure; and d*ntidn,basH16the north-east corner. of.Parcel.C. PArcr-1,11 will include 923 parking spaces. Parcel, C willinclude 527 parking spaces. 'See pgs. ES -1. 1 12 and table 1-2. However, aftcr the,PfarWng Conurdss,ion onunendcd.approval of the SEIR unchanged ongin,lly,pmlse 6 were recommended by the' from how," aWd,' §'Ubita n"iti modi, c"'OrLs to project Planning Coxnrnissionat its PtbU�ingTh6se-changes inter dlid,, modifications to the footprint Of and - minimum size of.builaing,,�p#ds,,'the roadway aligrimeot, *Iihtgq fte th location proposed the ,parking lot laybut,arid,tittulitioti,,c' sttbacks, ms,,,--.,- e lo'ca on of 't'o'fiveway,btildidgfacedii.ohd, e,Tep acethent. After th wetland mitigation sites, frontages e Planning Coffirnission's,flffD ikirin gs the -project slv-tifit;afly,:i;hanged'such ,that Parcel C may 2r may not include.a theater. Parcel'Reaiot,'Mclude only,tWo, three Oribur structures - rather than the five considered in 'the SEIM. -&pendeml Won the needs - of I ffi6'project applicant and/or certain unidentified prospective tenants. None -of these project -chan#6 hjite'becn put into ihe,foriV ofa resolution nor otherwise reduced to writing. .16, additiomli�CitY'itaff does not expect, to release dic,current project *=Tipdon to the public any sooner than February 20, 2003.'-Ctiffen y' the;.public '-Currently; e"public, On not know what this proposed project actually,is-or"willbe' z Clearly, tbepr*ct.,de9cn'bed in the SEIR is n-br'the'pro' 'bein dercdjoday and thus the SEIR. project desei-i-p-ti'oii"isincidiricomplete nor stabjc: The fluett t ngnature of this project will have, cocrespon4ing.6ffecls.'ori the. SEIR.41 analysis ofirnpacts, including analysis cifth i,_napactsof the project on traffic' oamms,,hydrology ,,'(floodiiigj wader quality: and, tiosionisedimentation), parking, biology and noise. .'Without an adequate analysis `of thc;",City and public 'am deprived of discussioniblp, effi6ttive mitigations.. if the changes in,- project;a.g n---ej4the',SE, iwscnixigzor additional dlita'ch ,lRJn- a, *ay fife;.depriy I pu, ic o �A,rncAnin ul 0 , p , portmty to comment upon substantial adverse envirn- meln*fcpcI sf;, ib:o&,SEIRmhust beyecirculated for additional ,pII ub. tI ic� - tothinenty even if the City d6tiftAxes that allOsiavc"Mitigated. February 5, 2004 Commenl'Re:'Pd&lurw Village Marketplace Project and Subsequent EU( ®2/®5/2f�04 11 : ©1 5].BB9193 c3 SRIAN_tiAPFt�EY PaGE 03 , T'he SEIR projeadescription,also fails,to fully.dcscribe a nyof the project's stream;crossings • and m'odificaf ons 7'he City'Couricil,and'lhe.public_are t.gld that,a Streambed Ahemtion Agreetneiu will be sought:.See. p: 1'=36:-lbe-SEIR.fails to�prmvide,-a proj�ct:d scription of the;naturc, scope artd desiigrnof streanabad alterations for such S.bed;Agreernents. W thout.such.a.descriptiop of the design and location ofthe sftw bed altentattions; the Council.And�'the pubic are ,unable to assess the: impacts (and.ncccssary mitigatiotis)'to.riparianhibi* instream habitat,- and aquatic."-arusms.'from the:proposed project. Finally, neither the 1 "F nal E1R n this proposed SEIR includethe changes in they 8.28 acrz abandoned railroad right. of way in thii projoct. description. See reference at p. l -4. Development of the abandoned.railroad ,right of-waywas;, however; included in the '1991 project conditions of approval for lhis, project Th6ref6re in o_rder;io,comply with CEQA"s, mandate that w thee pro jectdescriptiori be complete ,ithc abandoned,ra road right of.way;must!be included; ifnot the environrnental,irnpacts will likely never beanalyzed..' fI. The: S Ftile,,to Adeagtantiely,.IDeeeribc=the Enviup®seot�li SetBiiiig,t An EI is required to include a description of#w;yphys cal enviironmcrittd conditions;in the viciniry.of.the project; -which constitute the:baselinc;ph '-MciJconditions by which a l' ad'agcciCy. determines whetber an impact' is significant.; CEQA Guide.Wte l.5125. Knowledge .of he regional setting is ctitical'to the tssessment:of eavironrriental impacts. Special emphasis,must;be;placed on environi ientW! mources that ate tare.t uW4to. the.tegioo and would be affected by,.the prujecL 11ei 1RMust demonstrate that the siganitieant env.irorim-' ntalryimpacts of the proposed. projeawcrc adequately inve:stigate4and.discussed kA it;musu' rrnit tbe,si&iifacant effects of tbevrnject to'be considered in,the full environrnental :pone) tk Id. l ie-SEEIR fails in:tliis regard ais'iuincludes no description' of the.extcrt"t:of the P`ctiluma,River flood lain,noca p floodplain map: Similarly, no land '„use�map'ts tnchxicd in.the SEIR. See pgs.- 1=1, 5-1. `136da isdvf°the prvxirtuty of the Project site. the; Petal' -8 Riiver; hydrologic issues,ate, of primary irn po rtepmAd the Project `SEIR" validity: SSee p: 5'-1. The SEIR hints 1hatit p000n:of the project wouUbe located - ithin the floodplain, but':.does,noi describe>tlic eattnt:oi locatiowof tha flovdplain - iiher pre, or post;projeyct ,construction. Seep. 5=1' 1.. Knowledge' of the eXtent of .the floodplain :is important io,the, analysis .df environmental impacts in order to evaluate .the intrusion of buildings. into the, Poodplaiio (p. I ); coinpliawxe with, the Ciry's "Zero NO Fill" policy regarding flood storage wiihin'the floodplaia (Id.);'caitsiste:ncy with Gene7aW'Plan Policy'Nos. ,7�&, FebnimyS, 2004 Comroerit Re:'Petaluma Vfflage Me+tkdoace Projeetmand Suhwquew Elk 3 0245/20114 5i 0891 9 ITO BF I AN- GaFF NL Y t'"l-iL V4 • 9mgarding,floodinaementand :hazards p- 2-16-2-17)consisten cywiththeCi*s M' , t. s regulations rep -riding floor elevations and floodplain en-croachnient (p. 5-9),'and FEMA insurance requirements. -Over the, years,, flooding in Petaluma:ha,s quised'6tchsive [multi -million dollar) damage." See p. 5-5. The City ';hajspcaoverr $40 mill - ion 'i6`alleyiatithose pm .&rnages. The SEIR's cvv'U'XMmchtaf setting also doe's not include any description of the parcel on which Village Drive, is proposed to be locatcdbetween the PcWu--M'R' River crossing and Petaluma Boulevard North. With..o4iithis,inforrTiatgard -ionre ing the baseline physical conditionsofthe project, the EIR can not adequately inform the I City and the public of whether` impacts will likely be. significant. 111. Inadequate Aims lysis of Sigmificant Advene Envaimnamental impacts Land Use aod Planning Policy IMRq�,t AD&sis f)A", The SEIR has fia]ilcd 'to properly analyze compliance, of the proposed project with all applicable labd use p,!ps, polcies, and rati6nS of agcieS'itb jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avdi"g or rfiJtig&i ng environmental' First, Chapter.2 commences ,by _promising rthat its second (Impacts and Mitigation • Measures),will surfimariie'the :OTcjcct's conformance with all applicable plans and polices and identifying mitigation, nwasiwes?. See p. 2- 1. However, the. "Jin*tand-Utightion" section on p. 2-26 And 2-27 fails to include the proper level of analys' js. 1bere is' no discussion of the facts and rationale regarding this projects consistency with lww use-pl. ans. MbrtOvtr,'th= is no conclusion of the significance or insignificariccof this project! Nor is them, , apy'dis"ssion of mitigations. The Council and the public. areJohl informed ly implies that Y ornm that the proj,p6tis "jenerW consistent." Tlu - in one or morn undefinedwayi project mixonsiswrit Wifi tidilmth'thea General Plan ("GP"), the Petaluma River Access andEnhwicerrient, Plan (PRAEP-)�and/;'dr thc,,,Cltk's Zoning 01&lwce. Given that a conflict with a land use plan, policy or regulatio'k acc otding to 66 SEIR is significant, this is x6tal omission. The setting ect:ion:dcscribh*vnrious policies firditt,co nfounds the reader. For example: GP Policy T(p. 2-9) - The,prior EJR.d ffun) determined that a srtbdck of 120 feet from 'Notablyi ther]OO'Elk for Pnrcel A limited its analysis to.the"Nlicj6"in,the ,CvencrW!li' Plan; and did not addrcsi the, Gcn&WPlm cmtral, or specific goals obj'vc1iv;!.:or.prqgrams,1ha1 coul& App Y to this propq* proidicC. %s SEIR promised to c*a6ftthck other asple1, 091 of the, Gemal Plan. See p. 2-6. February 5, 20D4,Comrr=t Rc.- P , ctibum Village Marketplace rmjcct and SubwqucW'E[Ri 4 1: 01 SI D891 93E-) BF, I AN-raGFTNE Y PA11E 05 the highway�hoi:ild,be re This required foudevclopmcni of Parcels B and w-s'Me Policy 7. projbctoalyrhas an 100 foot setback. Ais SEIR.concludes that the project is, consistent with 'Policy Tand that ihe,projWdoes�:uot�risictothe:levcl:ofe"poiential`i,chv*tronni.en.tid impact. T*hg;S.E - Moffers, no analysis or disqussion as, to howlt reached these conclusions. GP- Flood Hazards Policy 7 (p. 2-16) Tb-c,prsor EIR detervabied, thai requiring the floor elcyationsto be abdve-ft,100 ye-arfi-ood.pliin would assure consistency of Oeprojm,with Policy 7. However, we now know that the floor!elervation3 were off.Sei, Cornment.M-18, at p.,CR209. The consistency determination does not take this informationinto, swOunt. Further, there is no determination. of significance. • Petaluma River Access and Enhwweznentllan -'(p. 2-17, to 2-25) The SEIR-- determines that the project is consistent despite acknowledging that Villag e Drive Bridge, would 'be constructed ,through A'PreseNati6n Zone where the FRAEP. prohibits d"eve'lopment; of any kind According-;q ibc: SEIR, inconsistencyshould be si - 'Yet, the -with,this policy pilscani! SEIR avoids any statement m1wding significance and indoing, so also fkiJs to. discuss feasible effective rriititation measures: Second. ihci'SEFR- does not uatcty aOyzc,,the potcntiid significalit irnpactsrbffuybland conversion. See p., 2-21. The SEIR - rtvcal-s- that there may be "interference" with, a 'cultif 1b -,&n re�, � ut not "to.such an extchl, thnt; it would cr eate pressure locofivert.."Id_ However, elseWhere.the, SEIR states that "over dime, the on -going -ooIriversioh"' WOW be expectcd',to,perm&n=tlych ange the, existing visual character of rural 'FetaJiMuL;,Sei1.'p-. 13-5. The radjaccnt, liyesiock."YaN i& Wi iirwgrid piece ofagricultint kfrastnwture wA its l6st,will'bave cumulative. impact on farrolan&convefti-on throughout theregion. CEQA requires!,,aria)ysi5'4tw'i.,issue. Furtliei, the SEIR offers no c6nctugion as to whether there will be, A SignificAntopact from farmland conversion. Third, ibeSEIX fails1to analyticcompliance proposed with, all,appli cable land project, We,plans;ipol i.cies,7and*regulidions of'otheu WCTJCriCS With jurisdiction over tfit,PrOJ6c1JWl,uding the:: California Departrnerit of,-Hih,and Garne,the U.S. Fi'sffi,and Wildlife'Ser - vice the:U.S.* Army Corps pf;E,n 'in tsjFederal,� ency" Regional Water Control, ,g ve , 'Management) Agency and the Board. r. ourffi, the SEIR fad to, aba)yzt oqm pl iance with Conditions 5 -1, 52, �54 and 55 of Resolution' 0.1. 1 -3 6, which: -clearly are aplicable, land, use regulations. See,p'. 1-5 to 1 -8.. of %yi*leach of the above it a procedural violation to�arWyzc'cqmpliajace' I6fk C.EQA.' Fe6pury 5. 200 eftmentRe- PeWum village Makelplace Project and StAnaquent EIR 5 0 • e2/eS/2004 11: 011 E ftv&o'Ioej�a pact Analvsis Flaws , ydkolbgic jmp4cis including flooding, water quality and crosi On/Waimentition. TIo significance, cri.teda.,(p, 5- tl) is flawed asit doesn,!v rocognizeas, a significant impact inconsistency with the City!s"uirc=n that 'Itnishtd floor' elevation. for new construction in thtflood,plak-must,bc two feet above the 160 yearflqpd elevation" (p. 5-10). •Tbe�ar.Wy'Sis!'Lcith;NAing.impacis i's,flawed asthiemis, now �evidence, before the City that the finished floorelevation for new construction in the r inis floodl la� no' o p. tw fectaboiefire IOO yeae- flpW!elevatjon. The conclusion: that ahincrease-in,runoff dueto the prvjoat will hdv"ean insignificant impact is improperwherc,base6on conditions in the'PeWtimaAlve-i,rether than on thcPctaluma floodplain. • Then is no analysis of the hydrologic impwts of the detention b"'to beconstructedon the northeast corner of P.0011,C. 17hae is no analysis lofthchydro'logic irnpact&.of the new'Village brive;which will' crass .the Petaluma River. 5ioI2jjrALL,e,sourc.cs Irng!Lq'Analysis Flaws the'SEIR violaks' Resolution ,91 - 136 which required, env) mrimentiu:review ofP&rce)s Band' C to provide analysis of impacts needed to minimize adverse'impacts to Capri Creek, the Petaluma River and other naftual phygitid features, inclu ding. riparian habitat,;seasonAl wetlands and freshwater marsh.' TheSEIR fai6bD,&iCUSS ilnpaCtSIorate,plantdcspite the roquirernent,df Resolution O 1 -136 that a survey tious'oeb plants be urdbytaken. Ile SEIR Wed to -analyze impacts to. IOf the Fs pccses,prrwMbn the site, including .the. Sacrarnento°*ttad, despite the comxrw6ts of thcDcpIl. of Fhh,and,GAme. Traffwand' -QircUjaWn)jnOMt Analysis Flaws Parcel A has, 962'p4*ipg,spaces. 'Parcel $is projected ItahAvic 527 parkixigi spaces and, Parcel I C 923 spaces. The SEIR fails t6analyze theimpact of trifflc circulation,withiwand among-, the.hrialt parking lots. The SEIR fails to, arWyze, thv traffic impatts of ft new -Village, bin.ve which w')'*Il cross" Petaluma River. Fcbruary 5. 2004 Cbmmmt Re: Pata-luda Village Marketplace Pmjeoand SubsquenfEM, 6 02/05/2004 11,: 0 1 a Ei'll 6?Iw_�_"r r 1qr_ T The SEIR fails to comply withResditflion,91 - 1361, Cordtion 51 (E)'s requ-Lrcrncnt OW S PtOJeCtSL 0 shall, be peCifIC, "area wide" IrIAIBC �inlpi§CIS associated _ 4 B & C ktgd with identified concurrent with the environmental analysis of the: specific prvject, The SEIkfaflsto comply withResohnion,91 A36i Con4ition 51 (E)'s,rc'q_tLifexuentdwtraffi'cI analysis for Parcils Rand C 'shall incl udi evaluation of thepotcntiad!need t;D.Tequiwshar;xl parking agreements 'with Parcel A and the potential' need of prior completion of the ..emLW-west ov trrchairf& prior to projcct"approval. The SElk,docsr,ntji-.'Wcl,udc,discussi'-On;otcomp ! - iancewith Resolution 9l -13 6; Condition, 54. TailureAD Azw*n the, Whokof ffie-Proiect The SEIRand'i 940-011 havc,,faflM,'tq analyze; the wbole,of the prvjpct. I)eV lopmebt of tbe+ aba.D&ned railioad right of way has'not'been subj I pnlo CEQA analysis as Ovelof ftV900 Final EIR nor this proposed SEIR.,Sipificant vcgttation,,.was,tost,:a'iiparian area was filled;,,arid,awatlands corridbr,Wul'�wellxnds acreage :wem,iost.,Si'tiuWYi;the SEIR.failsto include adit.lysis:of theimpacts from development of the parcef on, which Villag e Dti.ve -is pmposed, to be Wated between the PeWurna FiVey-vossingwid, Pctalums Blvd, North. fiplurvia AnWyzc Fadircct! Imbacts The SEIR fails to iticiludeo "ysI's.,of the eny,'vowncaUd impacts of the demise of local downth,Wrn bbsiriesses ..As a.{res& of the proposed, W, project; ect; including adverse, impacts to downt6,06W-Central r6wMa''traAc W4 circulatio, . n,viban'blight, abandonment and,d o"y of the' central ciLt oy - mentemergegwyand policyserviccs Under CEQA,. y�and,dtlkr'cornmervial areas, empl "direct and 'indirect sigWficant effects of tbe,project on the covirownent shall be clearly identified ind ivihg�dik,c�oiisideratiotto�both d long, --term effibm *scrib�d,,gi the .171e discussion shoWd,,i'ncludetrelevant specifics ofthe.'afea, the resources involved, physical,'; alterations changes .to po"pulation disthbutiqn,-pop"dn,concentration, the humxn use of the lat-W (inclOditig commercial and residential development), heklthAhd:ufety 'problems caused .by the Ohy§icaf changes; ajDd',otlw aspects- of the resource; base such AS water, historical and public ublic s*etvices."CEQA Guideline 15-126-..3(a) The ,SEIR has fai:kd toawd these requiitment-t. Failure to ldcAg& All Uhavoidnbk]WV _wts. The SEIRfailedlo identify6-sin zard as�.W iS i JiC Ma s voidable, despite, concludod that even la. after sniti&tion Ahey vMl'be'po"tial igruifieant. The S-El'R also did not- analyze -all si grifficiint, February. 5. 20-04 Co�nrtieoi Re:: Nblu'ru Village Marketplace Project and Subsequent tik. 7 02106/2004 1'1: U1 _10by17_b'0 n' AHl� _UHf f IVL•, I, I N , mMmas;identified;by. the L.09011R for,Paizel A where' mi6gations;wcre never itriplemented and.thus the4inpacts: are unavoidable. Id. Tb SEW .JFkib o A &mud* Ataaayae Ct®Ub&e'IIlaeptatts The SEiR includes°a scetion &votod to "Cumulative lmpact-s on.p..13-5. The SE1R 1) hails bo I aaaly're the'4000arivs impacts of each -likely urtpac-t (ie thene;b no'snalysis of the cumulative impacts to :`biological rt�§otr+ces) aW ,2)' fails "to °-property :analyze„, cumulatve 'impacts resulting from the u II tncrezraertal:' of past, pm=wand reasonably feteeseeableifuture'pr*cft.J Cumulative Po[Alilatior EioUM& Emvlol[mfx :t Analvsis Flaws Tiic'SEIR starunmriay concl_t; without di.�ctrslion„that no ct�uliye inopacxs are etcoocted "ut combination with other di^ve]opamerrt applications that. could causer polnilation, See housirig;or eaiptoyimeat irrrpacts." p: 13-5. This oortcltrsionRiOlawed for at least three reasons: l . An EIK must provide, analysis - not, 9inlply unsupported conclusions, only thm may it serve its intended piupow of informing Peonitm aAmcision-irtalcers arW the°public., Z By bhly consideirictg "pain' develo�m�t applications tt�e StIR zAacessa�raily dacs not analyze the "the W. in the;eaviinti®tent'"'r�riting'ffrotrt the Pm) P ''P ?t gbh fomsemble pmje=..' '%aiding devclvprncmt aWilmirio"w"'certaihly do.,no4 .include past Pr'o.1ts: Moreover, ttxne'is no case law"or CEQA,�uideline which so+tiatrrowly restricts `tasonibly foresaeeable projwtw to 'eroding development applications. Despite that the public',ix David Keller, apprized (lelsea".of hut- nxsot&:teasonably.foreseeable projects 'inl commews on the Dmfl'SEK no ,equate cumulative impaci�aoalysis. -been conducted 3. Tbchuiitaatiorihousingoremploymem:wWwscottwxtw stheCEQA mandate';that a cutnulative isnpact.analysis consider `tincreumtal",impacmwhich may be individually minor but.cLanuLsavaelly,oai wdetable, Oddly, ,than, SE1R next jumps°to a diffcrrrtt conclusion that becausse'* t :..,,., ,, .I project would not exceed the aievelopgwm allowed in the 'General. Plan, "there:,woWd'be' no cbange 'in cumulative impacts; associated with the [proposed j project that have ncx been considned in tt a enviionrnental a valu8tio0 of ft-Gcneml Platt." See p. ,13'-5. 7hi"s too -is flawed. As,discimsed above; such wnclusory stalcmerrts. avoid the required wal.)jj ;aif past prm"t and r+easonably';foresoeabJe projects ,Even if the I The flaws ia'tke SEll3?svCuinulative Impaet: analysis at'p;'13-5,ar ,,not, rectified in the "Summary of `impacts" "section �whicb omits any mention of "ct inwative i'mpac-ts." See p. ES- 3 through p. E-22: Febnaeay S, 2004'Connmont Re: Petaluma, v'iliage Marketplace Project aaod, Subsequmt'EW 8 02/05/2004 1, L: 01 5 108,919 -1 F-0 BP.'I A14,_GAFFf4EY PAGE 09 "amountwlid i - ntt iy" of dc-n''bpv=t, had tuA been "exceml,4" this'docs *n !mean ixxs�o acto I that the Pt unpwm are eqWva_Ie_qt; each develovdientha-Sit's own unique fboqxim and design whicb.*,crezot lo�owm when thr., CvnerW Plan RR, was ccrtified,ind which.'also am affect potential envirorunrntal i3n Pam" FLwdxT,,' tbe ptir ,poosc,6f a General Plan ER isio evaluate the '►mpacts of the land use czmtution Om adopted Mere co skrinity with a gc=W,pim in aiid of itself, wiH'qdtjust4.a,fit;dM that Ow, project , has no sigaificanfenviromnenW effects. See Andock v. Pvwbi4q'fl,980) 117 Cal Ap 'p. Id 1325.. Neither the General EIRI on. itsIace nor the City at the firne.,,of cerfificationintended. ,for that EIR to "IBOU'dwanalysis requir.edIDEMs for-spocific Orojetts..-Ncidici-the'Gencral PksiEIR. ,cwthe:-1990 EIR for, Tatcwd A, 3_*_UatielY`8ddiM* the 006'W'W sreffmde'Llumuiadvc impam of the proposed PetalmaVi1lage Mvtetplace PrOjeqfN6tably,:pxqj" am now which- ffWInot hnvt�btth rcwonablyIomsteable at,the time -of certification of the, Genend Plan FJR ix the, 1990 EIR for P*a=I,A. Ilius &.cumulafivc impW analysis today could -differ. Ewnui"ve Tmffm IrW6ct'Ar*ig�� .Mw�SEIR:concltd6iW"'Maisc�us,-td,in,Clmptcr,?,"the propo ra bsed,:pi,6jmt'*�vould'cormibutt;to thc,prqjocW:csxm"vc-incase in trafficaldag roadways and at "awpfions in,,,Ibtviciviity-.,7See p. 13 - it's uin-passibleltiD,,say if the EIR LsWw6ing Ibe City and,die publi66dwi ifthere i s,a cuom I ulative,impact. or if this, impact is sig'fimt' Tbus, the SEIR doosinot cotrlpj'y'with'CNA Gwidelitteamfibri,15130 wWa'requuesithit'thc:&,disaLision q('cMW*'V u4'-np&c'ts"=flcdthe seventy .of the impwts abd,theirlikelibood of6ccuoarct. If thetmmulutive%irnpao is not the;SEIR is reodiredw briefly indicate wby djecwnulatkpe:.impacti's siogficant, identify_ing6-ts4nd analysis supporung that cogoat='�OM 'Rcfemkm-,io Ch"rI does„m disclose a gp Oaffic impact ddiscussion.M or full cWhWAtive Under the,titk -fi&= conditioni"(pp. 7-5, 14),,the SE1R rtrvesisAW iheLml of Service' criteria were &for applied to,4 seemri6s- ])Mi �sting conditions. 2):Iiiniit;cohWiionstk; ,-,u*Mr,,anticipate,the,ye4 201,5j"" 3)'eM'A*g pimproj&I - tbicexisfiM t fl *olddvespW.%6 dt PCWJIM V-111W.Marketpl*6 Coty�parc'to riextw.ntencc where hem contribution-io air quality is charaeerizedais,&"sioii6caiit" 'cumulative iMPACL I.,EilyizgtimSEIR'scla'u'Ot*orst-ca,w,trdtc-anjysIs, the futtuie trarI'scerufti Oveloped solelyfiorPM Poutk 40tuiratric v6JiOn6',','a;nd.didnOI r include the A, Mor mi'May peak' bouts �(g. 7-20): Rob *c*et,'at dines, ,-thc,ltvtl,of-sci,-A'cc in,the.AM,is worse -than at P.Mpeak - eg Exi*ng Conditions at. Intersection' 14 (Washington/ 0 �e p. 7-7. M�D well). S ,Febr► ' 5,'_2004 Cm.a. em Re: PeWum VAb9i,! Mulketolaceft*ct and,SLihsequent EIR • • .0 1 021105/-20_04 11:Dl 51108,9193Q0 : BF I AIA_GAFFJEY PAGE 19 prqj&-t,,and,4)�tbe1ut=vaffiC aifti6pated'for2015 plu��a P UmaVi-flakeMarketplace project. What is nussmgis f Est p)us'prescnt plus fiture projects. Indeed. the � modeling which examuu1bou o bistor]'U `trWW en&- lawd, I =�ndy'becmise the ullw*l yielded mWts chwtcterized,ogily as'%mstabfc" Seep. 7�'19. Also, because, the SEIR,doespdtreveal whw, pwimts were included Lin, the caletilation of 'future traffic anticipated for NO," it is impossible to know if all reasanably fibresepable projom" were included as`Mqj6jed by CEQ�- hoermWy Wem not; ,6wwhcr6the ;SEIR_ states tbarbnly twopeo-jects were incl Wed in the cumWetivc analysis:- the Redwood Teclmology, Pak: and a dbwna->yeam flow control prqjvct Sew p. 1'-35. AsAiscussed infta, dxie we riumerousreasormiblefbres6mble projects in addition to theSe two. -rhus, the curn"Ve traffic analysis is agiin1liwed bodauwof its my0piC fbi=5, in clew comwentioni, of controlling' CEQA law. Chapter 7 concludes tM'* 'Yuturv'P)U5 PWjCCt S'IpdiCWA f impacts to 3 intersoctions and I -midway. Tim City and the'Publici,dephy ib g,'priq`p'eir and full cure Walive U-4ffiC:irnps;t,.hgivc,iidtbeeb,iidoffrwd if the LOS for :these ,inkr3cctiot�ro� ywuuld , degrade fimt)w or if, there am. otb,cr intersections and madways ikilicb also woWa-be sigwficmdy impacted. In addition, aSrCiWUSWdj*,,wi&Mfl &e rNWilte analysis qum"Veimpacm the FUZ can m have adequately dixossed.mitigations for such impacts. .Cumulative Aesthetipjlpvskdi AnaKsis Flaws The SEIR stases,Ibardr pruject-wotild, "contribute to,a curnWn,fivr,,rediwtion",L*n the nurnbeT of opnamwcumnty-secnbytho5� traveling aloxg the 101 corriddr.,"Ovtr timc'#w on90mgconversion" would be expecW402 pwm=dy cbtnge'ft existing visuii! crharactervfruial PeW6hW See p. 13-5. This %anternent does," diqcloseto the p."icvT the, Comcil whether the irpact is sig7lifitant, and thus ffils,tOCOMPlYV'i&'_CEQA, CortTesPDXIUY le , by avoiding 'tm'oW,ftpaI wsoChapter I Imakes no attemp-pnis.im&nu of the SEIR discusws the individual aeW)cticimpacts of the project aDdi,'conclude.s.dw there is a significant.&jpqct,from I ) loss of-wenic ret&tvves, 2) degradado'-w6f Visual character and 3) incmaxd light glare and thin iccoran=ds rnifigatiou raeasures. curnwativr 14vdroloexjmgj&tAnW.-ois Flaws Che#a 5 of the SUR di9=xw* significant hydrologic impacts including- flooding, water quality 4uc-a 10 Febfuary 5, 2mV 004 C6menj Re:�Peuluuu Age Marketplace Project and Subse6EIR 02/ 05/ __ 604 11 : C11 516B91933a BP 1 AN_G4FFf4EY PAGE 11 adiderosi6Wsbdiinmtat:i'oxL,Se-e Impacts 5,A - 5_3.The,,SEIkIkJs to include a'vilidabAysis ofcurmiulative hydrologic impacts. Fimt;,thetr, is,,wanalysis ofthe change;inAe:einvironnmn rcsWfingfiom theprojeiq.,whCIuj_&&kd to -past, pms6ntand',rtasdnablyfi projects. "The proi in'this cumulative impact ,an .is the Redwood1`,ecAr!o!ogy See p. 540- Thus, die-S-EIR'S' cumulative - fin ' .pact analysis -only- considered '1*6 L' See p. 5-20, .5-28 (flooding) 549 (sedimentation). Tl=t, isno consi&crafion of 1),lany past ects, including P*bel AAtve l9pmerit 'or any otber proicaikk PeMinu River floodplair, 2) 6ibeT existing duvelOPMts br, 3):ahy reasonably = pmjects,othert%um-dCrRedwodd.Tecb Park. IbeSEIR rernarkabireven igriats,th; Army C orps downsaum. flood CMtMIL PMject, despite de=ibing rut= projects for*puqoses of curnulalivt impacts as including this Sood1projwt. See pt 1-351. The SEIR did"not consider the cwnWadye�hydrologic impmcts despite acknoWIed&g- bighway ii4striaa".W,W,re,-s-i,dL-nt-W,ea!na=ss US., 104-mind1beftWung Livestock Auction Yard'to the nortb (see p.. i'A), and the developnwDt of ParceJ A. . .71ten am also, nmwrooz iensonable foresembleprojects'wtuch were not considered as discussed fully bdow. - _ , CEQA does riot permit a con**ir►ed cumulative, kn;xict aaaly5is OfM*iDnW impacts. "Socause ofthe pmxirrity.ofdv,P,mjcasite tothe P!,River,hydrol*cissues atcpfp&n wy - to the Pmiact SF.rR" validity.. See p, 5- 1. Ibe SEW§,flwding, model corjsi&mA the pejwwha. Rivcr dow'nsimarn 6rwiflowzrook thrip!* Peiguma, RIV-Cr 14ZUCaM OfLyn How0m, no -analysis ofCUMIdifi 4xnvact,6f bas pnsdmind'yeasonablef lo aw er -.*s limite& C Yen w—Wo stretch of"thePealud-ARivi-er was, inchi&din this SFJR. In KiVs Cosvity Farm flweau: i,. City of Hanford,(1,990) 2,21 C&L App..3d 692,723-72-4; ibe,Court set,aside ariELR vhikb Wed tocorLqWrthe cndm:;air basinin its ctunulah've finpads; analysis. So hcrtthis SEIK is flawed for taking . a constrained approach to e t cumulaivhydrologic: impacts i3 of pbr6cWari:oncern given cumulative I - 9i which the ineviiAbiWof flooding 'in'the PcWum River floodp SMOIA the-SEIRfails to comia, the"curnuMve'effed of flooding on therPeWumna River -when T combined -with"its;three trifttaries which nm through the proposOprof Pmjectsite... All three O*mus drain, Aghway 101 through, culvqu, cross the Project, site, ArW,disibarge. to the Pctedurna.Riimer:" See p. 5-2: Th , ud, the SEJ]k completely avoids a' Platil cur�* V PI e. "water quAity' analysis: The -SEIR Feomary 5.2004 Comnwnt Al VAha*Marke4�accTro urna ject aod Subsequem EIR • impermissibly assumes, without arty supportingAita or analysis ih�t."i� tbc-pn) posed water quality Mitigafigamramres for each individual project in plwc., rio:si'"Cam CumulativC W8I&quahtY'iMPW5 would r I cWt from the two projects.." See P. 5-29. However, under CF-QA,fk requixed analysis of cumulative impacts awhot be aVOi&Ar Ofi- the unAaPPOrWd'a=Wiption that whaever iinpactsoffia pmJccft naay have ,.wW"bt,lrnidpft&,'lh,Kinas,Countv the court,cxpWried-thay., The 4ffiscussi die" OR of ;cumulativevpmW0 n. In r impacts of eh�ru epts sinWfflto the Oq)oP9qdJ WF-piojert amtaifis w,W,of the dem f J'tprojects F,9n& no: ird owregarding th&'6pected 'WnpWWpD:groUWWKff rewurecs: am rw a�alysis.df the cuintdifive-impacu. D mere JCVCr Alch DMIOCU MaV_ will be by existing mW plaM60, osierQoaq�� 013 of agcmtcs in the area `_Abscnt some data the Yohkrde-.ofgrqtkxhvaw used by all ,such prpj'ects, JiJsIm"ibie, to•eviduaw, W&*= the iftpects'am6awl %` , f * their pse 6 grouDdWacr kre sigd6cmri and whether such ww" will -indeed beThiti ed by *A wafer cmservati ( '9M .. - I.. qO4ffbrts'U-PO-n'wWch dc EIR relies. Kjap County, mMm-221 CalApp.3&at .729-730 (emomis.addo). Here, thi, SEW does noteven mention RedWoW Technology Park mitigadonslWn wbr-b it iclics. An adequatictimulative'impactana o in analyst's unsupporW conclusions of.insignificance significame and considw ail pest, pnsent,and'foreseeabie jects as discussed above- Oun"kiBi_olo6cal Resources UqWt Anal vsisTJ aws Astorii4xinglyj th6SEIR ,has nd"WHIlysis, of the curnulzdvcinpactof this pro ject to biological r-mources. A dmto*'cumuladvc , tM I kw * ASparticularly .,i'm rtant hue because of the VaCU YSIS, substma al cvidence of imp"'fibin the prcjectlidom. Eight aignifkarg adverseinvam.from the project are idcadflod in respect to lbss,of mm" wctlwids, riparian haw C-14 pond nutles, rod -legged frogs, nesting yellow" warblers; nesting white-ta-fledIdies and, degradation of wwer quality. See p. 6-25 duough, 6-11. - Yet, :here there is not: even awyrrwrition oftutnu)ativc„ inp is or irnpwts 6-dm'pksf 'presezit and future;projecis. 'M addition, 'thie,, d&1ion,'the;, SEIRJias ,nos °anWyzcd the Whufative Unpw,!to bioI igipal resources of �M '6 f devej ibfthe,aba�k developing Pawt1s,13 and,6n Then nu nglitofwaY 'iind' 0'f' Parcel A, $1gr"cant vvge4ra'wCJJAh& COY7i&r'WW'WCda[J&_ �n os�, a riparian , Was fill J acreage , V�=16st'*ith'Ae &V I t C opmen. 6fthe,., albai&ned railroad right of way. Fai.lure to - Como ,with. QD6 fnikkiine ¢ 15 12 The SEIR,discumion fads.to include cjd= I)A list of past, present,ftlh= arid probable prujmts I producing relate&or uumulativc impacts, including dose projects outside: the .control -of the City. or Febwmwy 5, 2004 Commem.-Re: Peta,UMA,:Village MWkeV,We Project and Subsequent bsequent EIR 12 02/06/2004 11: GI 510691 9_I0 BRIA14_GAr Fr4EY PNGE 13 2 f' ertions;corrtained;irl an ad of -related 1 documcn or.in ®' ):aalmunary.o proj - ' B 'P P .annu°8 t, a prior envimnn-,ental dos rt which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated 'regional or areswide cond tioas,cop; ibufing to.the cumwadve "pact.,Further; the.SEIR fails:to define the geog<aphic scope :of thetarea,affb& d by the cumulative effects and fails to prvvide�a:reasonabl0 . . explanation -&t this grog ic.IbWtaciom Failum to Adeauetely Analyze the `Cumulative Imaact:of Past. Pmiects They SEIR: ,also acknowledge's 0* it has eicc LOW tibe tnost irroortafit, past project the, dcvelvlmnerit of' -Parcel' A the existiiog I'05;UOQ', square foof fimCtary'Mall development. T1ie SEIR exliressly focu�rs on dcveloprnaut.of;Paercls`$and c; "and:nut t} cnvironmatCal efforts associated With the &-mloprnerrt of PancelA.".See'p. 04, crriphasis . lh,a&litior , the SEIR does notInclude the:i=enwntal impacts of past projects while ac ri6im edging s-tach'd.rvelopmenit.projects ,exist in the irnmediate�srurnundings. See pgs. 1-1,; 2-3, (highhway oomrra�ial uses toibe immeA a west;,indusZiial and Msidential uses east .across U:S.:101 including-Ni not limited to Redwood Business Park III; Petalurria.Livestock Yard'to,ow, north.) FAih�AdeauawlxAnalyze theClwulative lnmiwt of iteaso bMseeatile;>�uttuc'Pmieds SEIR:states that its considcrstion of furr+e projocls:lfor purposes of"autuilati.ve impi;s tiaras lirnitod fo.. only two 'projects 1) the Rodwoad Techadlogy.:?wk, and 2) ,; downstream flood coahol project:, ,See p. 1-35. There: arr. numauus reasonable foie�ccat�lc: projects in edition. to these two,, g, t, ) ' `'gh app lion directly east of 101 including, infra alit, 1' the 30. acre Na boitiood, at Deer Cieek lice .:(cornmeJ± W and, residential)r,,2) the Rolinert pe4 tribal casino Federnwd, Mam :of.Groton:'Indian./ (iflnpec'Rs likely aelatod to -traffic, Sonoma Co. Water Agency wager, power gencrstion, WAMCweicr and dnergerry services). 3) Rainier - U.S.101 Freeway Interchange a(WbrCrosstown C4i—,:.w„ ,;, ) aiftjor . residential subdivision at Petslume,Hhyd and:Jesse I a—m, 5) the possibility that the.cxji Ling mall:at Parcel. A will be leveled and rebWlt; 6) projects in the, OdKral Petahrma Spccific, Flan project 'arra, 1 the \ tohnsori: Property�ts.of housing; 8),pmjocts relaw&to anne-x�tion of _ape�ttaa�ts - coed for ovcr'300`. north,wesvPctahuna;'9).`b' bux devclopmrnt,at the site -of thc,existing Pacific Citsetria theater; 10) chain siores.added,to existing retail shopping centers ,aiTlaza North, Playa South and' Wasliir ra Squene„ 11)' mdeyelopmcaof°K�ailworth Junior i-ligh'School site, 12) deveioprnent at the Ac be I Wnbec:site; '1.3) Projects at .M olta Avcouc 'arid ±Paula :Tans, i>nd 1�4)"expansion of''Santa..Rosa Junior, , new, housing prof � . College..:At'Ia,ritih:irnutn, the;SEIR should have comsit a those reasonbly'foresceable �futur�e aprojects - t 1.3 Pctmaary'S, 2004 CommenrRe:'P-etaluma'Vil1aQa,Maricetpiace 1ProKd�rmd Subsoqum Elk . 82/®5/2f�Da 11:01 S,10t391530� i3RiArJ_GaFF�3E'Y' f=AVE la tfic. ch�acteii'zed ss. "the'level, of;devel t'Viw, the CityA iinabely anticipates. in the which SE R vicviity of tl►e Projects" (p. CRZ55); referericing:F.ups"3.1 and12.2. Tn Cact,;bacau9e'oflhe regional nature of naaiig of these impacts '(cg. traffic; water, ciov %atnwn,)Petaliitna.,bligtit); the cumtilat5 ve impaa n analyses strc> oonsider,pivjects outside the : i nu�odiatc" vicinuty (c;g. flood issueswithin theItoodplain). 7iie c�ulativc i mpact asrtaiysis far;sil impacts is inmdoquateod ':-as ivfail'to. consider these PrDjeCtL CEQA requires that the curnulative, impact analysis include! "teasowlily forrsecable' future projects: This SEE iiiniit , c irnulanive ;impacts analysis to these' 'Yorma]ly received" by City and "considered complete." Ip doing so, icreplaces the CEQA's stauidaid of near Mbly foitseeable future projects with `absolutely foreseeable" future projects.- The cumulartive impacuflawsJiscusscd above are procedural flaws in theEIR, and are not.based on a differer= in"opinion4nor rrfut►ed si niply by substantial evidenceh�e.,1f City w,e +e tp oertify the' SE in its current forte, it would 1z exposin9" self W judiciail 9crirtiny on these very.iss► s. "[!]t is vitally impartmtt tbaf an 1FIR avoid iriir iminpg'.the ctnriulative inipacts.',IL�Paer;;it"must nciod,a conscierrbious effort to wide ptiblic agari es and.16e,;general public with'adequate, relevantddailed iiiforniation AM tficrn. 'A cumialative^itinpecc analysis which estates i `rnfimrmetion'wncerniug the severity and • significance ofcurnulative'irrtpac'ts unpedes'weeningfiil public discussioQ;aa�d skews the docisiortaer's g,�,r,.,�;:ve tc carriing the crrviionmental con5equcnecs of the prcjeet;`thc nooeSMty'for nriitiotion measures, 7and, the alrpropnei�ss,of'proje�ct approval.'"Mbuntain Lion Coaldion v. 'Fish aid Game Commission (1989) 214 Cal, App: 3d'1043,1451;Kings Cauno;,,suI*d;-22.1 Ca1.App3d at 723, citations omitted. IV. I®m quS,Pi^o ;A igatioas f Usc;poliyARit*gation Flaws „ TbeSEIR fails to itddrx=` airy' .'xm'bgstions related, to land use plao' policies and regulations- jyd�io�cc Miti`eatio�Flaws • There is no analysis of mitigations for the hydrologic impacts of the aeterroion basin to be constructed on the northeast corner of Parcel C. • There is no analysis of nnitigatioris for the hydrologic_ impacts of t}ie.new Village:l3rive which will cross ,tile. Petalunw: Ri-ver. There is.no anagm, ofttat.rfftrtiveness of the proposed hydrolo®c,miiigations. For exarnple, t February 5, 2004 Comm cntAi-,'Od"Wuma Vitlmpre Marketplace Projoa m W Subpsequcal EIR 14 " e2/65/ 200'4 11 : 6'1 ``i 689153ED BFIAN_GAFFNEI' PAGE 15 Mitigation 5.1.;1 c6ims to.,nrir,unize the intrusion.of buildings into the:floodiplain. Yet, thccre, is no discuwon of.•whene.the buildings will„be4located:,Nbr;js there dikloswe of'the exterit or 'locstian of the Petalutne,tlood plain•ptie,and posti*jcct'crib-tnx tion:.W;thoud"disciosure of the location of thc`buildings and the extent and'location of the. -flood plain, the Council rind the public are uniable to ;detmniinelthe effectiveness, of, the:proposed mi�ion. It is impropmID:consider a:signi5cartt impact to: be°initigated to;a point of less, than significance Wed' solely on engineering soeirdirrds, •particularly whereas here water' quality has been determined to be §3031ilin ited.. oloV-cal' Resoumes''b& . on Flews CEQA requires that wherc �scvcW' measure`s, are aysilable to mitigate an. impact, 'the. basis fnr selcc ing; a partigidw measure= sbuuld' be ideiitific d. The SF...1R fails to provide this .basis for proposed biological resource Mitigations.. The SEIR de&rs wjtigaions withoutspmi6wi W perfstandards or°'cri1eria ]he SE1R.1;.as failed �to consider'nr, disc ti§s the feasibility of proposed mitigalions Obttiw g is and „L,.-�:,y.w froF6'other' tes ms pisrrii a�,, . - agcnc' _ y nort'.be feasible: Any mitigition bmsdd• on.fiscal contributifts from the Chelsea ,are Utlyinfeasible given: ,that "Chelsea has failed.. to ttaoely'pay. S 1:2 MillionDollW-3'Ww an interest-bewing escrow 1191-122,wnd' Resolution 091- 136 fortrafiic mitigations. MwISEIR-fai Imp analyze chic feasibility of the proposed MWgatlon„in light of Chelsea's history in thus- regard. Likewise, the `SEIR avoids' dist,ussioo of feasibility of mitigations, based; on 'results- from the ,Parcel A„N i'tigation Monitoring, and Reportuig Plan The'SEM failsi to discuss rnicigation&to ram "plaits despite't c requirernent.of'Resolution 91='1�36 that aisu vey for such plants be, undertaken, Tlie'SE1R ,felled to enalyze:mitigations. for all of the species present oo thevsiw, :including the Sacramento spittail,,deschic Rapt., of Fish and Game. The SEIR'Wed to define the location of w� gands-on..*a ,pmjed,an l the location and ezterit of crtitigatioas: Tfrc,SEIR faila'to discuss feasible rnitigation forthedwnges`in the 9.28- acre ahandoned'rai lroad right ofway. Signifi� snit vegetation was lost; tripatian"areii was fallcd,:a, wetlands;eorridorand wetlarstis acreage;were,:k _%t with4 is developmoni. Yet; iM SE;IR.fails to diacuss any mitigation. -for these impacts. Fcbniary 5.. 2064Cemmen(Re;.' Petaluma Village Marko'lace Project andSubsequentTIR '15 •' 02/05/2F3F)'4 I I F) I t I FIB 5 1 0 BP I AN- &P . FNE'Y Pi- GE 16 ,0 0 The SEIR %_'IbLites Resolu-tion9l_1136 which required anvV,3rumcnW'jrVww',ofP Is B and C to prbvideanalysis ofthitipition rerded,bo'.rhiriimi ,id,-vrrseimpactq;to Capri Creek theletaluma Fiver and otber ;hp physical, fcitures, including jiparian)iabitat scwnal w4Lwids and fT=hwa*, mamh. 0 ne SER 'r furth6rIeftt ftesWuiion 91-1161",as tbae!,l1A"' "b= no, pjepQf;RtjOn of.a riparian h values' ydiplogic,c�m�,,aWpmtocdonand pmsavatioit*ofexistinalhabitaL Tmffic,and Chrukfion,MOgion Flaws CEQA require-s that wh= sdvcral.rncasums are available to itijaic an impact, tbe, basis for nu selecting a.*ticubw measure shDWd be identified. The SEIR fhils twprov!&'diis basis for pqvsed traffic wW circutation, mitigations. The, SEIR'defersmu"Oga�ofts without vecif)* pierfbrmancc sbukkuds-or criteria. The SEIR has tailed,'t6'consider for & "the.. f��a of roposed. nutitiouAny mitigation blisod on fiscal coritribLifio-ols ftorfi the ClieLsea arehkdy'kf�"blCgiven that Chelsea -has _ f"od' to timely pay S 12 M" Iijo n"'boila'ri ;'inba affi in*"4 I x-AW"excripw I as mquired by ResoWon #91 - 122 and Resolution #91-136 for vaf5c mitigations. The SEIR ,fkils to analyze the feasibility of the propmed midoon in light of Chelsea's hisimy in this'regard, In respohsie,lo comments the SEIR acknowiedged that, in theabsoice.of fimding, effective imp)exr=dation of' sod traffic.mitigations Propo is in doubt. See CR262. Likewise, the SEIR avoids 'discussion of feasibility of proposed mitigaiiions a based - an results fi'DM the L, Parcel A, Mitigation Monitoring and Repwfing Plan. The SEER. failed'16 consider fewi6le,traffic mitigations, incimling those proposed by,Calftws. See CR77 (1-5). The SEIR fkilsto'c9mply with lRcsolufiojn,91-136, Cbndition.51 (E)'srequirement that specific, vicinity mnd' "afte-wide triffic mitigations associated with projecu on R & C shall be, .idcrrti fied mww-=t . wi , th tt*- eriveonmental aaWysis of the specific project. Mitigation of C%=Uj8tiVe,jMPaCtS CEQA has responded, to the pr9blem of incremental environracnial degradation by requmng analysis orcurnulkiveimpa�ts. D'-Y avoiding proper analysis ofthe ,cLa nulativeirnpacts,the SEIR makes no attempt to discuss potential ff'ungoonsi for any cumulative impact, • f February,5,2004 Commew Re: PetalumiNi9 fla - Markdplacc Pmjod and Subw4twnt-EIR 16 .r 1 1; . C 62/a5/'2©64. 11 : 01 51 d891,93=,r7 BPIAN_GrAFFr4EY PAGE 17 VI. The EiRVAiled to Ade4ustely Respond'to Comgments The governing'standard;for response to•`cominexas Iwo FEIR re4uires that: in preparing the final -EIR, the [agency] must describe, the disposition of each ;of the si�rnfic�nt:environrnental, issues„rinsed and must particularly set forth in detail`'the reasons why the particula tbir inenWand objections ,Wei re;Mectedaad why the [agencv]rcoasidere& the.developidem ofthe projccvto be- of ovemding,rnrtportance.. A oonclusorystatement 'unsupported l y empirical ou experi'rr e�tal data; screritific' authorities; or, explanatory information:of_any k z .. gt.only fails;to',crysta11i2eiissues (citation) b�ut''affords;no, basis'for, a comparison of Ithe problems. involved' with tht ',proposed project, and; .the di rlculties involved ', rtie alternatives:` (Chador.:) Moreover, where. comments from responsible experts:oi si6ter'agencies disclose new,or conflicting d oropinionsthatrcauseconcernthat tbe:aBmcy-maynot,havree fully-evaluatedtbe�proloct,and its,alteraatives "these comments tray not simply be ignored. Tlocre must be good faiti� rcasoried analysis--in,nesponse: (Empliasit added,xCitatiota ornttted) . , ., We conclude that. the [agmcy'.sj failure to respond with specificity in the final EIR to:the comuacnts and otijeetions to fire draft EIR waders the final EfR..'& ally,dcfcctive ^ (People v. 6o ;iry.of .Kern (11974). 39 Ca].Appr3d 230, 941-841,; Sianislaus Natural Heritugi�Projeci v.: County oJStan si dus (1.996) 4;8.Ca1.App.4'182,.1:91.:) The::S'EIR'sponsc to Cottvooents: sRe C),Wa to. ;l) describe the. dispositiort,ofeach:ofthe (R, T sigrii_ficantenvironmental.issuesraised. 2) set forth,iz,detail the reasons why the particular-corpsnents andvNeetions were irejected,3),set forth,Why the,City considered the, deveboprner of the prroject.to be -of ovcmding importAncc, 4) avoid conclusory statements 'unsupported by data or .explanatory information,,. and 5) providc.eood faith, reasoned�,artalysm DFG Comments DFG.is;the.stote agency ,with responsibility tmderthe cor=�on 1aw.public trust doctrine, the. Fish &. Game.Codc and the California Endanger�ed Species Act for�etasuring the long term survival_ of California's wildlife and habiW. in that role.DPG's°comments demand good "faith and reasoned analysis,and'detsiled:reason-s why the"particular c minents wid objections w—cre rejected. TIhc SEIR in its current formwfails wrneet these CE,QA_standards. For example, DFG cornments.thafthe SEIR must"analyze itripacts,to saeelhead migmtionAnd':rearing habitaf-''because„of the project's�'`potential to impact'Ahe Petaluma'Rivcr, its riparian woodlands and 4ace tt"wetlands. DFG"comments.-that Table 6-3 and Table 64 art: inaccurate 'regarding sicelbead,. Sacramento ispiitail, California freshwatev"mp. DFG comments.thit the DrAft SEIR'conclusions regarding impacts to. fish, at p. 6-31 are -not justified" and•ihat stmlhead,'Sacrmmento spiv 1, California freshwaicr.shrimp"CoWd be "signiacantly impacted" by'a:new bridge iwd by utility. crossing"s.:• The,RTC responds tharmitigation fora riion.of.the;project- `lill'age.Dtive Bridge -would reduce. cffects.to,steelhead: (ResponseF;-0 Vnder;'CEQA,. nikiiation does not substitute for the analysis--recornmer dadby DFG'as rflm ycc wid feasible mitigation can only beproposed,once •the impacts Kaye .bccn analyzed.. The RTC avoids any discussion of:irn ,pacts,from utility cnossiags: Inaccuracies pointed by DFG in Teble'6-3, Table-64, and regarding.i'naccusacies in,the,Drafto'SEiR 0 February 5,,20M Coo me URCTetaluma Viltag. Msikctplace Projed and`SubsequeW EIR 17 • 02/05/ JOEA I L: 01 51 089,1 9330 P4GE 18 • pr discussionl'of & itcellici p(esencei,a�spawrung babit&A tkp�'Oject' site; (p.6-21 are corripletely, e in e SEIR ri�d responsive analysis �is provided regarding ignbr�d. 14rid `Nrnpaets�'to steHbead. DFG comments that insufficient information is Msentcd in thC'DraK SEIR to justify a .conclusiqn(p,6-32). that,no,mitigaiionis-neoded- DFGtbi6ntwmsts°5�separate,:f.6asible-niitigations for theimpacts'DFG forescesl o special status fistThc RXprovides no rdnsc to comment. See Response F-6'L The RTC provides no response toDFG's comment that focused surv*CYS maybe needed. to confirm that there will bie',M6 impacts to shrimp. DFG,coinments thal'thertis4no4SCUSSiOn DI'the ini tsbfft proposed river walk trail and Pac- suggcsis,i.pitigation that iherivler walk trail and any landscaping be located outside the 100 foot landW-":'Pe'se-trbacL'„:T,'bc"R,TiC,;does ',;'ji'oll,:provide the requesw,in"pactanalysis or ad-dress,DFG's comments; instead the RTt,reitetita" the proposed project. No,rcvisjons WCfjL made, to Chapter 6 of the SEIR' in response. to DFG's substantive comments. CALIRANS Cornmeits Caltransinquirtim to the timetible.for implementation of CNh,mitigatiorrmeasure proposed in Chapter 7 in relation to theprqjoc.t development schedule. -The RTC oL-fdruces"61atifications at p CIZ9 CRI 4. Review of that section provid I cs: no inf6rufati6ni on, the timetable far implerikentation in,relAti6n.to the project development schedule. Thus,,.theSEIR_'6s,WledIo provide the requjred'good'faith,`�'TCA�Uncd rcsponse,,or sct faith tin Act-tif the ,rcason3Why thel.commenis and objections were rejected BAAQMU'C=Me_A1_S BAAONO,re'cormmen -su more, to inifigate'thc Air quality impacts and to ds"' bsi�ntjall Y reduce vehicle:trips - bey9n& the -SEIR's "kenctic list disconnected from the s*ific.,prqJcct or location," as the vehicle emissions for this pwjmi are more thazi double the District's , thresholds. Specifically; 'BAAQMD, reCOMAMpqcis qqnsidefation of reduced parking space and employee incenti vesio,ii'de,transit,the, RTC rejem the ideaofFirtparing momamquality rai -ti gations, without providing, deWIc&rc&';or'rs why the BAAQMD comments aM,objections'were rejected. While the ymly2dcic','�ole�ofhe ER is topr*,ko6dC,cffcctiyc, feasible for the CoUdeil:toconsider'pMP culatly° where, 'as here; mitigation measures, fait to reduce air RTC 'fWtb-e-ifffiils;as:it.�does,;,not°:se forth why the dcvt!lopMent,"ot,,'the ,lprojept,,i I p considered of . overriding' , g importance. David Kellcr'C 6 m&61i The RTC &)eS not respofid:to Kella's cominentS regarding impacts to employment and 18 February 5, 2004 Comment Ru PetHJUMaLViJWSe MW*414CO Project andSubsequeWER m 510891.13 383 BPIAt4_G"F'FNE'Y PAGE 19 h6usin (JJ-1)1. The ,RTC does,natiresvoWtoKellcomments ,,ts _relz ArdjnS�w'-wnsisIcncywitb each General Plan' ".CedtrW Goal " (134), wi Plan Chatitei 8 5),� w,with.,0i th General �n;ral Plan, Chaptbi 3' (Ij-6). lq9tcadihe'RT-C rel�teraleS.Ahe, Draft SEIR,positioniiegardiiig�:GcfieruI Plan "land u*dczigna0pn,";hqrgby:fadi g to describe the 4sposition'of the gnificantJssues,raisM by KcIltr regard i ng,GP Central Goals, -ChmipkcO 9 and 3, and,fkilin�S 'i pro ViAe'the reagoiu"why the comments _ were rejected. The RTC responds to kellir's, eommeaLs regardingwith:' - prdjedt'btcqns,4_qrnc_, ihe River Acccw:.a'n'-d Eribancement 'Specific, PI by, stating the, pro 'consist an project is. Without explaining the degree: and 'scop e of 'ihc,izonsi*sten-cy,/.,mcongistcnc-y, the,RTC tins &dploycd, impe,missible concl'u-S--iory, statements unsu or explanatory itiformatio'n. While true: tbat,the,City ,C6 tin6il'*illd-ete,rrn,ine'GenemI Plan -consistency, the EIR's, I role is,to.,,pmmote informed: do,cisionrr.iab'rig,&y,odressi'ng,.cofisistmey., The-EIR hzs i-,fivther -,eoiuui;i role -of rcspbnding'to �n'n ls by the p4bfic..Reri, bectuw this SEIR !not' �pot comply with, CI QA's ptoadurid mandates; certification would,be an,abuse,ofdisddbom 71c RTC dots not respond- toXeller's coninrienti regarding the P oieci'sdfrect:andindikeet,4. , inimedi0t, and I I ong term a&verseimoacts to the center of Petaluma from, the demige of 10cal', downtown bOinesscs as a rciult of Ihe proposcd project, including nOuding advasc itImpa.cis .to Central 'Petidinna�,taffic:aind!,'etmWe.tign,', wban blight; abandonment and decay of the- central City, and:othd existing comawcial,areas, empIoyment,16*4ncomehousb_g needs for low-ihcome;xnAllenployces, cm&'gncy*n&poJicys6rviocs- (B�Z-3 .,,,7, 9) View artno0bertl I y ic "econom" problems, but clewl I . �S I ,Y �have environmental', Physical, impacts: which stay 'be, sigmficant." The RTC again employs 0DnclU3MY43tat&='ni,unsij fled1by dataor explanatory- iiiformation and thus avoids ids the good f6ffij reasoned analysis required by CEQA., The RTC,,,does-,,!nptmpondtci;K61let''s,co-'mments,-,rcgardit*aduty tq,rusethe'most'f ant and 'fec, comprehensive info.ffni _. available (JJ:29).tbus'aVo'idingadc'scriptionofdisposiiion'of this significamissue. The RTC Won ' t touch MI-er's reorfirrica4hi:at, there, is piecerneilih roidWay pi,6*Cwhich would connccfjha Ramie vr -o-od'In'ljgmen!,projedi'(JJ-14).'The RTC does riot., respond to'Kelleir's. comments thafthe° O.S. Army Cvtp6, Of ED-hccrs 461dPetwUrr ;Petaluma all additionAl Wilding upstream will co'rnpi6thisc theflood controlprqJ JJA 8); 77ie does -not Under CE 'A 'dirce iftdire� Q -�' IJ t and t Si'milifit;kit effecti"Ofthe pro ,j&I'o_n the envi.ronnient ShWI be, clearly identifled and descifibediii.ving 44C zonsidtration to, both the,!shorl-'termEind,ii)hg-.term effects. lbe.,:discustiofi'should,,irtciude lev ' " 'ifics- - tho area, theresdurccs,involved, re ant spec of physical th-anges, ikltmtionvto_,,qcolo s,, and gh popu , gi systern' _Mges-itiducN in, distribution,. 0 ation concenixa&n, tfitk human use'4 theJana.(including commercial and p pw Onarn - - - - ,residential development), be Ah and' safety problems cadscd by , the physical ,changes;, and'othef aspoc&of-thc.rOsod= base.esuch as wat'cr,- historical -resources, scenic quality; an(!:public Simices." 'CEQA GuidcliGuideline15 1 1, . 261(a), emphasi' :Added. I • I=cbnwy 5: 2M4-CowmentAe!�PCWt=S v.jIIagFLMArkML*e,PrdjW and Subsequcni EIR 19 • 02/05/200'4, 11:31 ;51089193l6a' BRIAN_GaFFtyEY PAGE 20 rc nd'to Keller s comments .thatthe. SE the'c„ . ative loss of wetlands for the �• spo - )"R�dces+nut assess umul this sod project is located (JJ- , The .RTC does not upper Pctalum�s�RrYci= basin where popo _ rmpoM io Keller's comments that`;Ihcir needs to be. surveys .for., shrim"peas the surveys' conducted werc'toolate�inthe season (JJ=19): The; RTC does°not; nd o KeHer's comments,re,g&di'ng the alternate ee ofpumbasing the r... 't -Corona Reach ,of the Pctaluma" Rav'ec as a park; the need for analysis of a,dditional species, 'incon9i9cncy "with the'OATrescrvation Zone, or the cumulative loss to:the River corridor (JJ-21). Response'JJ-21 sokly references Response F-9 which deals,with none "ofthiese issues, but only with concerns"by the kWQCB regarding the river walk trail. • • February 5, 2004 Comment Re. Petaluma Village Marketplace Project and Subsequent EIR 20 CITY OF PETALUMA ,, CALIFORNIA MEMORANDUM Community Development,Deparlment,'Planning Division; 1.'1 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952 (707) 778-43;01 Fax (707) 778-4498 E-mail:. planning@ci petaluma.calus DATE: March 19 2004 1 TO:. Mike Bierman, City Manager FROM: Mike Moore, Community Development. Director -- Betsi Lewitter; Project Planner John Courtney, Lamphi'er-Gregory,, SEIR Consultants SUBJECT: Petaluma�'Vil]lage Marketplace, Response to February '5, 2004, FAX from LaW,O ff ces, of Brian Gaffney Per your request, the fol]ou%ing is a,response to the FAX received from the Law Offices of Brian Gaffney on February 5 "2004. -The 20, pages submitted by Mr: Gaffney addresses what he considers to be inadequac'es'of the Subsequent. Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) completed by Lamphier-Gregory for the Petaluma Village Marketplace Planned Community District Amendment. It should.be,noted that'the:required 45-day.review period for -the Draft Subsequent EIR originally began .on December 2„ 29 02; however, due to lack of notification' to some interested parties, the public comment period was revised to begin December .18, 2002, and end on February 3, 2003. In .addition, although encouraged but not required . by ,the California Environmental Quality Act (CE,QA), the'Planning Commission held public hearings on the Draft SEIR ,on January 14 and 28, 20.03. Mr. Gaffney did. not submit written, comments during the public review period nor- d'id.he'speak' at the Planning Commission public hearings; His letter was received,.. by .the ,City o'f Peta'luma 'on February 5, 2004; one year after the public review period on the DSEIR had ,formally ended. After the January 28;..2003, Planning Commission e Cit J s. EI to tsr ec lived on the Draft ected to prepare the FSEIR, meeting,,;nth � , y' R� consultan which; provides responsesto. comments EIR. and clarifies any .errors, omissions, or misinterpretations. The Planning Commission reviewed the Final SE'IR, on April 22, 20,03, at which time additional "public input was taken. The Planning Commission then recommended certificatiori:'of the SEIR to'the City Council on a 5-1 vote. The comments from the letter are presented in italics, with, the related Staff response immediate..ly', following in plain text. . The Planning' (Commission's recoinmendation that SEIRbe approved is not binding on the City Council. The: City Council, takesindependent'action on th& proposed .project. It can either certify the ,SEIR • as adequate •and ;complete or disregardthe. Planning Cominission's recommendation and.•decide not to certify the SEIR,as adequate and complete: Substdntial changes in the project °were .made in: the. Pla"nning Cornntission`s sYbsequent PCD approval ;hearings.. , ' Although the. 'Planning., Commission .hearings ;have -resulted in „some ;modif cations to the description of the Petaluma Village Marketplace Project as defined 'in. the. SEIR, the modifications would nouresult in, any new significant environmental effects not evaluated `in the SEIR, 'and would not be .expected to: increase the magnitude of any significant P.roj,ect-related environmental effects identified in the SEIR. Ina number of cases, the modifications to the Project Description. have been made to further reduce, potential environmental effects identified in the SEIR., " The Petalunia.Riv& Council and David Keller ha.ue, had no opportunity to address, this Council ivith respect to, the changing Project Description and ho"w• it affects the SEIR. " The City Council is holding a .,pub-11c hearing on the SEIR to' provide ''an, opportunity: for comments related to the, environmental evaluation ,of the Petaluma Vill'agelVlarketplace; L The SEIR'Fails,to Include an.Accurate, Sia'ble and Finite Project Description The ;SEAR evaluates the ;project as defined at the. time. the 'DSEIR and FSEIR were,prepare'd (November 2002 and April 2003, respectively)„ which consisted .of-173,400square feet of retail space, on Parcel B.'and a 10 to 12 screen movie: theater and .36,000')square feet of retail. space .on Parcel, C. Any.modifications that may have been. made in the .Project Description since that time have.not bc='incorporated in the SEIR. These modifications include: 1. A reduction in the size of 'the retail spaces on Parcel B to no more. than 163;000 square feet divided into a minimum of twabu ldings. 2'. The .installation of a. view corridor. between the buildings on Parcel B through which 'Village'Drivewas rerouted -to 'pass through. 3. The extension of'the • - Ri;verwalk to4he'most°sou'thern point of.Parcel $; — 4. An•irrevocable offer of dedication by the Chelsea Group to the City of a conservati'on.,: easement over the tri'arigul`ar portion- of Parcel B south of DeerCreek. 5.. A;max•imum parking ratio on'Parcel B :of S spaces for every 1,000 square feet ,of retail space. 6. An increase in the setback from the Petaluma River to a minimum, of 'L00` ufeet and where practical, .150 feet.. 7. -A maximum of 81,000 square, feetlpf retail ;space' on Parcel G. to: be. di-uided"between, two separate buildings to -again create a view corridor between,the buildings:. The Planning Commission thenfequested additional changes; which were re'fl,ected on.the plans reviewed by the.Cbnimission at their December 9,, 2003,.meeting, as follows: ,2 ®. 1. The parking on Parcel. R was reduced to a 4,75; 1.,000 ratio; approximately 30% are to be compact size per City standards. 4:0 spaces were moved from Parcel B to Parcel C. 2. All parking was removed from the view corridor on Parcel 'B: 3. The setback from, tfie Petaluma River was increased"to an average 'of '150.' for Parcel B and the setback from both 'Capri and Deer Creeks were increased to a. minimum of 50,' per the requirements of the Petaluma .River, Access' and Enhan'cemeni Plan. City -Staff has determined ",that;, these modifications would_ not'' result in,. any new significant environmental effects not evaluated in the 'SEIR, and would not",.be' expected'to� increase the magnitude of any significant Project -related. environmental effects, identified°in the 'SEIR. In a number of cases, the xnodi'fications 'to the Project Description have'be'en' made to further reduce potential environmental effects'identified in the SEIR. CEQA requires that a brief summary of the proposed project be included, in the draft EIR. Although case ,law has determined that a project description must be accurate and consistent throughout the EIR, the ,CEQA process will. often result in.proj'ect changes reducing the severity of environmental effects. "The CEQA reporting process; °is not designed: to 'freeze the ultimate proposal in the precise mold ;of ithe'initi;al projectI.; indeed, new and unforeseen insights may emerge during investigation;,evokirig revision,V lhec original,proposal:" (Kings County Farm Bureau,supra, 221 Cal; App., °3d'dt,pp. 736-737;) "CEQA compels an in process of assessment of , environmental „ impactsf and responsive project ;modifications which must be genuine. In short, a project °must be open for public discussion 'and subject to agency ® modification during the CEQA . process". ('Concerned Citizens;, of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32"`� District Agricultural Association (198b) 42 Cal. 3d"929, 936 [234. Cal. Rptr. '748].) .If an agency, after completing, an EIR, ultimately chooses to' approve only a portion of the larger ``project" analyzed in the EIR, such ,action, does . not retroactively invalidate the project description". (Dusek, supra, 173 Cal. App. 3d atpp. 1040-1041.) The SEIR project description fails to fully describe any of the project's stream crossings and modifications. All stream crossings proposed as,„part of the Project Description are shown in REVISED DSEIR Figure,1.3, Project, Site Plan, on, page C&R-362 of the' FSEIR. As rioted on page 1-36 of the Draft SEIR, the'° project w;ih 'be subject to approvals .and permits from the tJ. S. Army Corps of Engineers (US'ACOE), ;the'U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service' (USFWS), the. California Department of Fish and Game:, ,(CDFG) and',,' the' Regional Water Quality Control B'oar'd. Prior to the submission of applicationsfor permits from these agencies, pre -.construction surveys will be required. The SEIR fails to provide a project description of the nature; scope and design of streambed alterations for"such Stream bed'Agreem en ts. Streambed Alteration Agreements,are negotiated between the two:,involved parties (the project applicant and the California 'Department of Fish and Game) following 'completion of the appropriate level of envi'ronmental�review (in this case, certification of the S'EIR): Neither- the Final EIR nor. this proposed SEIR' include the changes in ,the 818-acre abandoned • railroad fight- of way in their project description. The'S"EIR evaluates the Petaluma Vill'ag&.Mafleetplate Project as shown in REVISED DSEIR Figure 13: Pr6iett, Site Plan On,pAge, C.&K-,363 of the FSEIR. All development, proposed at the time, of DSEIR publication (November 20,02 including any, development proposed within the Abandoned railroad, right-of-way, is evaluatedin fheSEJ_R. 11. The SEIR Failsoib Adequately Describe, the Environmental.Settin The SEIR -i - description of the extent' the Petaluma .'River SEIR floodpldih,hoe a-fl66dplain map. The SEIR contains an extensive discussion of the'Peidlurria River fldodp--l-ain{and'related ,inipac.ts. Local, ,flooding issues,, are 'addressed onpages .5-41 through. 5-16 :of thei DSEIR, and.Project- . -related effi6cts associated ,with ,flood'ing.liare evaluated on, pages 5-20 through 5,22 of, the DS-EIR, with, text, modifications; as indicated. in .the FSEIR. Those -portions of the ;Project' `site that are within the, flood lain,of the. Petaluma River and tributaries are shown in Figi!re,IV A-2: FEMA ,J P. 7 FLOOD, ZONE AND LOCATION. AP in.DRAFT fNV JRONM- EN TAL IMPACT REPORT.RIVER- OUTLET VILLAGE, MASTER PLAN (March 1, , 9.90) and FS'EIR Figure, 2: Floodway and Floo7dplain in the V1`6nity of the Project Site (page C&R-409).. The ,SEIR .'s,.en-i-i-i'roomental, setting,algo does. not include .an descripti.qn� qf, the- parcel on lvhieh • Village Drive is ,proposed to be located betvi een the, Petaluma _River crossing and -Petaluma Boulevard North. Without this 'information. regarding.'the 'the baseline physical conditions of the project, ject, �the EIR cannot adequately inform. the City and the public of whether impacts will likely be significant. The FSELR addresses the area through, which the,proposed Village Drive Would'.pass,,Oh pages C&R-383 and C&R-384! The proposed V1.11age-Dri've would pass through..thewestern p -ortion, of the Noyes Property (048-1,42-013); between, the Petaluma -River `and Petaluma Boulevard -North. This vacarit'�parcel is'hotowrie&b�y the ,Project Applicant, and ari.adequate :right-of-way for the proposed Village Drive, would ,need, 'to 1be,acquired by the Project Applicant prior r to:any construction,: ny-bridge and roadway on-, As shown In the aerial photograph ofthe Project site and vicinity (Draft Subsequent EIR, Figure 1.2,,'page 1-3), there is limited veget S a.f i on Along the western edge of I the Noyes.Property, and the construction of the proposed: ., roadwaybiological resources. would not` expected to entail` on 'The construction of the proposed roadway would not .be inconsistent, W*ith'thel adopted plans :and, policies :of the City of Petaluma; .arid would ,not ,divide an, existing, community. The construction of the proposed roadway would not result in apy population or. employment growth, impede employm'ont growth, Or result -in housing; overcrowding. The proposed roadway would not: expos0peop.16 orstfUctures to potential substantial, adverse • 4 • geological effects (i.e., earthquake fault rupture, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic - related ground failure or landslides), although mitigation identified in Chapter 4 of the Draft' ,Subsequent EIR would need to be employed` to reduce the possible adverse effects associated with soil expansion and ground corrosivity to.levels of insignificant. • Although a portion of the proposed roadway is within ,they, Petaluma River floodplain, compliance with the City''s "Zero Net Fill" policy would, be, expected to reduce potential adverse effects ,associated' with flooding (no portion': of the proposed,, alignment through the Noyes Property would ..be within the Petaluma: River' floodway). Given the soil characteristics in `,the area, _construction of the proposed roadway would not be expected to have a si'gni'fi'cant. effect .on groundwater recharge; or any adverse effects on groundwater resources. Compliance with, Best ;Management. Practices during construction, and with the -measures identified,in a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan on an on -going .basis, would be expected to reduce potential adverse, effects on water quality Ito a level of less than significant. The traffic analysis presented in Chapter 7 of the Draft Subsequent EIR has, been conducted taking the proposed Village Drive into account, and mitigation, has b.eeft ' identified, that ' wouid , reduce,, potential unacceptable levels of service at the int'efsection of'Village' ,"Driye and Petalurna,,,Boulevard North to.a level of less than significant. Implementation of'measures identified in Draft' Subsequent EIR Chapter 8 to reduce construction-related",,air quality effects would be :expected to reduce possible adverse.�air q`ual'ity impacts associated with roadway construction to a level of less than significant, and the; operation'of�the pfop'o.sed „Village, Drive would not result in any change in- the estimate: of Project=related regional, air pollutant emissions. Implementation of measures identified in Draft Subsequent.EIR. Chapter 9 to reduce construction -related noise effects would be expected to reduce possible adverse noise impacts associated with roadway construction to a level of less than significant. Given the existing and anticipated noise...levels along Petaluma Boulevard North in the vicinity of the Project site (see Draft, Subsequent EIR Table 9.3, page 9-11'), anticipated traffic along the proposed„Village Drive .is not, expected,lo generate -,a' significant increase in noise levels that would adversely"affect sensitive receptors. The construction of the proposed roadway would not require the ,provsion,of any additional police protection facilities, fire protection facilities, school facilities, parks or recreational: facliti°es, water service, sewer service, `telephone service, gas and electric service or solid waste disposal. service. Although streetlights would,.be installed, along the proposed roadway, thepavement itself would follow the. natural, contours of the property; :and the, construction and operation of the proposed Village Drive would not be expected' to have any-significant.adverse visual or aesthetic effects. The vacant Noyes Property does not support any apparent historical resources, butcompliance with the Recommended Actions identified on page 12-3 of the Draft Subsequent EIR , could reduce any ' potential, ' adverse. effect On unknown archaeological resources That are not, evident at the site that, may be disturbed during construction to a level of less than significant. III. Inadequate�.Analysis.,bf Sigiiificant Adverse Environmental Impacts 5 The Impacts and Mitigation. section (Land Use and Planning Policy) fails to include the proper • level of analysis.. There is no discussion of ,the, facts and rationale regarding this project's consistency with land use plans. Moreover, there ,is, no conclusion of the, signif cance or insignificance of this: project! The .Cou veil, and the public are only irtfgrjned that the project is "generally consistent. " Tl is implies its one or moreundefined ways .the project is inconsistent with the Petaluma :General Plan (''(;P ), the Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan (PRAEP) and the City's Zoning Ordinance: Given that. a conflict with a land :use plan, policy or regulation, according to the SEIR is'signif cant, this is .a fatal omission.' As indicated. in 'RESPONSE ,0-5 on FSEIR page, C&R-423, in Chapter 2; the Draft Subsequent EIR indicates' that' the proposed Project. -is consistent with the approved River Oaks/Petalu na Factory Outlet' Village Master Plan Program, is consistent with the current. Pet_atuma .General Plan land, use�•desi'gnation for the site, is consistent with the current zoning for the6 site; and is; generally consistent with the General. Plan "and 'Petaluma River Access :and Enhancement Plan goals and policies., Decisions regarding':Project .consi'stency with approved .plans and °polices of the City of` etaluma•ultimately rest with the,CityCounci'1; and` ict with the. preparers. of the Draft, Subsequent EIR: The pri.br .EIR. deter -mined ;that a minimum setback of 120 feet from the highway•sbould 'be required for development of Parcels B, and C to'serve Policy 7: This project only :ha"s' a 100 foot setback: This SEIR concludes that .the project is consistent with Policy, 7 and that: the project does not rise to the level' of ` pote.nt.ial "" `environmental 'impact. The "SEIR offers np analy'•sis; or discussion as to how' it. reached these conclusions. The context for the discussion of the•requ1 red setback from the Highway°is: shown in the text of Policy :7: The :area between the Petaluma River and the West` .side ;of Highway 161 from Corona Road to lhe.railroad. right-of-way shall `be developed 'in a ,manner that strikes -,a balance between the industrial uses allowed and, the, desirability of keeping freeway frontage lands open: _ In di"stUssing Policy 7 on page 2 9, the =DSEIR states:. "The prior EIR_ determined that Ahe" Outlet Village; on Parcel. -A, which., included -a, minimum, setback of 120 feet from the highway; would serve Policy 7, and that the Community Development Department should require: a similar buffer or setback for the.devel'opment of Parcel B and Parcel C " Policy T-does, not establish d setback •requirement,, and the Project site,.is -now zoned for "Spedal Commercial",, and, not industrial uses. The City Council wi11 ultimately determinethe whether or not the proposed 100-foot setback would serve Policy 7: The prior EIR..determined that,requiring'thefloor eleva,tiotrsto be above the.100-year. flood plain would assure consistency, of the,,projeet, Willi .Policy 7- However, �we nowknow .that the° floor elevations were off. .See..C6m'Meii1 .JJ 18 at p: .R209: The consistency detertnination does not take this information into account: jFurther,. there.is no, determination, of signif cance., Policy 7: The City.shall regulate land AisesJn flood -prone areas', and should allow developmerif ifi. those areas only with appropriate: mitigation. •6 . As indicated in RESPONSE JJ-18 on: FSEIR ;pages C&R-263 and C&R'-264, "Uncertainty is inevitable .in the prediction' ,of flood coriditibns, and can only be addressed by conservative assumptions and .the incorporation of safety factors in planning.new development. New information will always be .developing that may change our understanding of flood conditions." Policy 7 does not set,s'pecifi`c.tequirements for flood mitigation, and the Citywill determine what is appropriate mitigation 'for each project that may be proposed " a'flood-prone area. The City Council will ultimately" determine whether the .floor elevaii'on"s proposed at the Project site represent appropri'ate,m'itigation consistent with Policy 7. The SEIR determines that' the project is consistent despite ackn'o.wledging that Village -Drive Bridge would be constructed' through a Preservation' Zone where the PRAEP prohibits development of any kind:_.According to the SEIR, inconsistency with this policy. should be significant! Yet, the SEIR avoids any sta''tem'ent regarding.significance and in doing so also fails to discuss feasible effective mitigation measures. The location, ,of the proposed Village Drive crossing in relation to the policies of the PRAEP is addressed ion DSEIR pages 2-24 and 2-25. River OrientedDevelopment'Z'one Policy 24 on Page 81 of the PRAEP states ihat',the number of,roads and„bridges across';the river should be minimized. It further states; "In' ihe'river reach between Corona Road and Lynch Creek, future development is likely -to require bridges across the Petaluma River and, across tributaries. These roads must pass through,Restoration ,Preservation 'a'nd' Buffer Zones." PRAEP Programs 24a and 24b .on the same ag , g' should be. located p estate that � road. b"rid es � in places of least habitat • sensitivity and where .:damage to existing habitat is unavoidable due to bridge construction, damages should -be mi'tigated toy the'�extent feasibfe'in adjacent areas within the greenway. The location of the. proposed bridge has,'been selected to avoid potential effects to established oak groves/riparian woodlands :located to the .north and south of the proposed crossing within -the designated protection zone. Development of the proposed bridge in this area would be required to comply with the Supplemental Guidelines of the PRAEP. The SEIR does not adequately, :analyze the potential significant impacts of farmland conversion. The SEIR reveals; that -there mayi'be " {interference" with agr"iculture,,, but' not '`to such an extent that .itwould create.,pressure, to convert:." However, elsewhere ih'e'!.SEIR states that "over time, theon-going, conversion "'ou wld"be�expected to.permanently change the�eXisiing visual character of rural Petaluma.' The'adjacent,l vestock.yard is an''inte--l'piece of, agricultural infrastructure, and its loss .will.have. curnulative impact on farmland "conversion Mroug'hout the,'region., CEQA' requires further analysis, of this issue. Further, the SEIR offers no conclusion as to whether there will be a significant impactfrom farmland conversion. As indicated o DSEIR page 2-26; the significance criteria,for Project -related effects associated with the conversion of agrculltural land relate to Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of. Statewide Importance.,.Nor portion of the Project site has been designated as Prime Farmland, Unique 'Farmland or Farr land of Statewide Importance,. and' as indicated on DSEIR page 2-27, the Project would not,res_ul;t;in„the conversion of such farmlands. As indicated on DSEIR pages 2-27 and 2-28', development pf'the, Project site as proposed would not be- expected to.'interfere ® with on -going agricultural„ operations in the vicinity to such an extent that it would create pressure to convert these activities to non-agricultural uses. Potential conflicts with on -going g operations are, more commonly associated with adjacent, residential , :ential development a ricultur.al o erat�o • ' rather than with, adjacent commercial development, , and the placement of parking, areas at the Project site could be expected to provide an.adeq.uate 'buffer between proposed commercial structures and nearby agricultural activity. In addressing cumulative impacts, the DSEIR on page 1.3-5 states: "Although the General Plan anticipates development at the 'Project site;', the, proposed- conversion of tw ' � vacant parcels to commercial use would contribute to acumulative :reduction in the number of "open," areas currenflyseen bythstravel' along the.'U.S, 104, corridor in the Petaluma area: Overtime; the on -going ,conversion of additional sites i`n. this, corridor which currently provide "open-' visual features would be(expected. to permanently change the existing' visual character of what,has long been perceived as a rural portion of.Pe'talum.a." ,As this, paragraph ,deals solely with cumulative changes. in ,the visual character of lands along U.S. 101, nothing in this,,,paragraph its related to the conversion of agricultural land, or possible effects on agricultural uses within the ,region. The, SEIR fails to, analyze compliance of tlie.proposed project with all, applicable,land use plaits, policies' and regulations 'of other agencies, with, jurisdiction over the .project;; including .the California Department. of Fish and Game;, ;th'e US. Fish and Wildlife,Service; the U.-S. Army Corps of Engineers; Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Regional'. Water,Qttdlity Control Board. Project compliance, with the regulatory requirements' of .these agencies is addressed iri „DS'E1R chapters on Hydrology, Drainage, Water. Quality;,and ,Geomorphology (for U.S. Arrriy, Corps; of " "• . ineers Federal Emer enc Management.Age Engineers, . _ . _g, y _ Agency,and _Regional, Water :Qua'li,ty Control Board) and Bi'ologi'cal Resources (for ,California- Depart metit of Fish and Game., U.S. Fish. and 'Wildlife Service and-U.S. Army.Corps ;of Engineers); .The SEIR fails to analyze compliance with Conditions 51, .52, 54 and 55' of Resolution 91=136,.. which are clearly applicable land use.regulations. These,, conditions, are addressed on pages 1.-5 through 1-8 of the DSEIR. As ;indicated on_ DSEIR page 1-7,. "The current application is intended .to comply with the, requirements set forth ,in Condition Number 5.1,; Condition Number 52;. ;Condition' Number 53,; Condition Number 54 and Condition. Number ,55." The City Councilwill, ultimately deiern ine the whether the Project: complies with these conditions. The failure to analyze; compliance with ieach offh&above is, d.pr..oeedural violation of 'CEQA. Each of ;the 'issues xa.'ised above have, been addressed' in the, S.EIR:, As, indicated, on FSE1-R page C&R72, "CEQA does .not, require-. technical' -perfection. in an EIR; .but -rather adequacy. completeness, and a good -faith effort. at full disclosure. A court does, not pass upon -the correctness,�af an EIR''s: environment_Al conclusions; but only :determines if the BIR 'is sufficient as an informational document". 0 0 Hydrologiclnipact Analysis Flaws The.significance criferi,a is aWed; as it doesn't recognize'as a' -significant iinpact inconsistency with the City's.'requirem°exit that ' f izished floor,elevation for newj'construction in the flood plain must"be two feet above'ihe.100 year flood elevation As indicated on DSEIR page, 5A 8, . the significance criteria; used In the SEIR analysis of hydrologic, drainage, water, quality or geomorphic impacts are derived from standard engineering practice, 'CEQA :Guidelines, and the floodplain development requirements of both. the City of Petaluma and FEMA. The DSEIR,. states on page 5-22 (Footnote 1): "The design finished floor elevations are at least-Iour feet above the -current FEMA base"flood elevation (see Table 5-6)." The analysis of floodingjjni pacts isI laved, as ",there, is ,now evidence before the City that the finished floor elevation; for'new ;constr•,uction .in,the floodpla n is 'not two feet; above the 100-year flood elevation. The November 2002 'DSE'IR,.used the most 'current information avaii'lable, at the time of publication-, and states on page 5.-22. (Footnote 1): "The,design- fi-riished floor elevations are at least four feet above the cun=ent FEIMA base flood elevation (see Table 5=6)." The conclusion that, an increase in runoff due to the project will.have an .insignificant impact is improper where based on conditions in the Petaluma River,. rather. .than .on the Petaluma floodplain. As indicated on DSEIR ;page 549, "..:...the Project site's; location and size in .relation to the Petaluma River watersh, ed' (emphasis added) are such that site -runoff will peak far earlier than the Petaluma River at This.1""o.cation,, and thus have a negligible effect ion, peak flows in the river. Only a small fraction. of`the riir"off from the site will contribute to river flow at the peak of the river flood flow, which is the controlling factor for .flood, hazard impacts. ... Therefore, an increase in the local 1.007year peak runoff rate due to the Project- does not represent_ a significant impact to flood conditions in the Petaluma River." There is no analysis, of thehydrologic impacts of the detention basin to be constru." ted in the northeast corner' of Parcel.'C. The design, for °the proposed, detention basin has not been finalized but' the revised, Mitigation Measure on FSEIR page, R-16 provides additional' de'tail�on the functional equirements thai'°the basin would be'requi't,6&to:�meet: Mitigation Measure 5.2.f: Detention Basin on Parcel C. A:detenttion basin is.planned for the Project site on'the northwestern edge of Parcel C, .adjacent'to Corona Creek. The mimary function of this basin will be to reduce the flow of water quality constituents to the Petaluma River-. The basin will be sized to contain a 2-vear.' 24-hour stone or an 9 alternative�Stormwater aualitw des`i�_rri ,storm, as acceptable to the, Re'vaiorial Water Quality • Control Board. It will also be _consistent with the design criteria for Extended (Drv) Detention Basins specified in' Stara at the. Source (BASIVIAA. 1999) (personal communication,. Wavne Leach, .CS.W :Stz). These d'esi.Qn criteria Include.the following: an average, residence time. of 2.4' hours; interior slop_ es no Rreater,. than 3 horizontal :to I vertical; ener.Qv diss'i'bation at, the inlet, a; forebav for initial settl'in2.,:minimal .pond. area with depths less. ,than. 18' inches to disco_urap-e ,mosquito reproduction, :and a reizular maintenance schedule.' Thereis no analysis of (he hydrologic 'impacts of ,then'ew Village Drive — which, will cross the P, etaluma. , lver. The- FSEIR. addresses, the area through`which the- proposed; Village Drive would pass.on pages C&R=383 'and C&R484, and includes the following',st'atement related. to .hydrology. and water .quality issues:. Although a portion of the proposed: roadway is within; the Petaluma River floodplain, conrpliance with ;the City's "Zero Net Fill" policy wouldbe'expected to `reduce potential :adverse effects associated 'with flooding (no'portion of the proposed alignrrie it through the Noyes Property would be within: the Petaluma River floodway). Given the soil' characteristics' in the area, construction of1he' proposed roadway -would not be 'expected. to have a sigru`ficarit effect 'on groundwater recharge; -or any .adverse effects .on groundwater resources. Compliance,."' with Best Management 'Practices° during; construction, and with ,the measures identified in.a Storrnwater PollutionYrevention Plan on an on -going basis, would_ be' expected to reduce; potential adverse effects .on water quality, to a level of less than significant. Biological Resources,ImpactA'nalysis Flaws The SEIR',violates, Resolution 91-136 which required environmental review .of Parcels B, and C'to provide analysis.of impacts' needed to.minimize adverse impacts to Capri':Creek, the ,Petaluma, River and .other' natural .physical features, °includ_ ing .riparian habitat, seasonal wetlands and. freshwater marsh. Project -related impacts to seasonal ,wetlands and riparian: habitat are addressed, on DSEIR ,pages 6-25 and, 6"-26,. Emergent marsh at the Project; site isi addressed on DSEIR page 6-3,and no Project=related impact to'these areas was identified. The SEIR fails to ;discuss impacts. to. rare plait despite tho requirement"of Resolution 91-136 that d survey for such plants'be undertaken. As, indicated on D'SEIR, page 6-6, .no special, status plant species were observed..duri_ng, surveys conducted in the Project area in 1997. 10 J The 'SEIR, failed to all of the species ',pres:e1W 'on:,the site; including the f Sac`ran*iento"s- 7 desp i te', t h e comments m e n ts 1� rhe De�t.�.�6f Fish aAd��6aihe. pittai, s 11 See RESPONSE F-71on FSEIR pages C&R-67 and" C&R-68 for a discussion of the Sacramento splittall and, _potential Project -related impacts to this species. Splittail are presently. found primarily in the Delta, Suisun,Bay, Suisun Marsh, Napa, Riverjetaluffia River, and other parts of the Sacramento -San -Joaquin estuary. Sampling by CDFG between 1992 and' 1998 hd§ shown that splitta-11 have continuously lived in, the Petaluma River -since the ' 1980's and have successfully spawned in' 1992, 19915, and 1998'. 'This species was also :captured during ,construction of the Petaluma Fjood''Control project; howev'er-J1 was likely that, its presence was result of high tides and. flow' rather, than active 'use ,of'habitaf.: Sacramento splittail have been known to use habitat downstream of the '.Project, site; for spawning, particularly in 'areas closer to San Francisco Bay. In stream construction may impact spawning -1 ng o I r rearing individuals through increased turbidity, siltation,' or-.1bgs of habitat.. Howey'e,r,,,, implementation of the measures discussed in the Construction 'of Village Drive Bridge section' bfthe, Draft Subsequent EfR's Project Description (Chapter 2,,'see REVISIONS to page I-- . 16) woula'tr,educe:potential adverse effects to a level of less than significant. Traffic and Circulation Impacts Analysis Flaws. Parcel A has 962parking.spaces. Parcel, B is projected to have 527parking spaces and Parcel C 923 parking ng spaces.. The SEIR fails io,analyze the impact. oftraffic circulation' within and among • the mall parking lots. Internal circulation at the�Proiectsite, was evaluated by W-Transfi6r,thP EIR, and is addressed on DSEIR pages 7-2-7 and.71,28, w.lier6iiindicates thqtthe *6pbse'd 1§ite plan provides adequate on - site circulation and accessl': to:p4rk_ing and driveway locations. The SEIR'Jails to analyze, traffic impacts of the new Village Drive;,W,,bich will -cross Petaluma River. The HEIR addresses the area ,tfirou'gh which- the proposed Village Drive would.pass on pages C&R-MTAnd C&R-384, which includes the following sidiement:, The. traffic anAlysis'. presented in Chapter 7 of the Draft Subseque . fit EIR has been conducted taking th pT.opose'd Village 'Dnve into account; and, mitigation has been identitield that would reduce potential unacceptable levels .of service at, the intersection of Villa Drive;and Peial'u;'m ,a Boulevard North to a level,of less, than significant. 01 J The SEI#fiails''to comply with resolution 91-136, Condition 5T (E).'s requirement that specific, vicinity and -area --wide traffic impacts associated with projects on B & C shall.be identified concurrent with the environmental analysis of the specific project. Traffic impacts associated with the proposed Project (the development of Parcel B and Parcel C) •. are evaluated..ift DSEIR pages 744 through 7-27. ff 1'i� The SEIR fails. to -comply, with Resolution 91436, ,Condition .51, (E),s requirement that, tra analysis for Parcels B and C shall include, evaluation ,of require shared the potential ene'ed to x8juir parking-agreenz.0ifs with Parcel A and the potdntial need of,prior conipletio-m of the-eastlWest ;ovei-passlinterch(ihg,epi*,i6r,t6.pt,oject�dpproV,dl:, The le,,veL of.,parking:4o,'be,provided on Parcel B and Parcel, C is sufficient to support. the uses pr oposed those parcels, and does notrequire-shared parking agreeffie As with,'Parcel A. As indicated on DSEIR pages 7-171 an 7-25 the completion of a new east -west cross'. town, connector, 6hd,U.,S. 10.1 interchange would mitigate operational, impacts ,at Petaluma Boulevard N. brth/ Was hington Street to� levels that. areless than. sIgnificant. In the 'absence of this connector, ,however,'a significant cumulative impact would be expected to occur at this intersection either with.or Wiiho'ut.lhe -,proposed Project. The SEIR does not include discussion of,coiiinliaizce,with.,)?esoliition 91-136, Condition 54. The 15 intersections evaluated in the SEIRWer& selected to' provide a cornprdhensive� understanding ;of 'Prqjec.t=related traffic JI.M.pacts. in, the vicinity of 'the Project s-ite, given current traffio-conditions, consistent with the intent of Condition Number.54 from. Resolution ,9-1, -136.. Failure to.4haj Analyzethe. Whale of the Project The SEIR .and 1990,EIR, have failed to analyze the whole of, the project' Development of the abandoned:railroad eight, of way ,has no . t been',suhject to CEQA analysis as part o(.the� 100 •, of .the EIR nor this MposedSEIR.. Significant vegetation was lost, a riparian area 'was filled, and"a wetlands corridpr and wetlan& acreage were, lost. Similarly, the SEIR fails. to include andlysis,;qf,the impacts from developnfent ofthe parcel on which Village',Dr-ive,,J$..prQp,6sed"to be located between the Petaluma River crossing ,iand,Petal dma-, Blvd. North. The SEIR,ey.aluates the Petdluma Village Marketplace Project as shown in REVISEO. !)SE- Ik Figure 1.3: Protect Slie,Plan on page* Q&R=3,63 of the, FSEM. AH development ,p roposed at the time of DSEIR, publication (November 2002), including any development proposed. within the ab'ndoned. railroad right-of-way, is -evaluated in the SEIR. The: FSEIR.addregses- the area, through which the proposed Village Drive would pass on, pages G&R-3 8.3 and C&k-3'84.' Failure, to Analyze:Indirea]mpacts The -SEIR' gils to,include -analysis of the environmental impacts of, rtbe deihis'e of 'local downtown businesses as s a resuj4, of the.proposed project;, including ,ludin ,impacts to downtown/Central Petaluma IrOfl,c,and circulation, urban blight!, abcindonMent and -decay of thecentral',city and other co'mmercialareas employment, emergency. and d& CEQA,. "direct and, I services. Under indirect significant effects of the project on the, environment shall be clearly jdent ifped and described, giving due consideration. to both the. short-teiwin:and Ion9 -term:.effeets; '-The discussion should include relevant specifics of the area, the resources involved,' the phiisical changes, aIt&ratiohk't6 ecologiedl systems, and changes induced,in population distribution, pppulatibn concentration, the human use of 'the -land (including c61niniercial and .residential devell?Pm6n#1 • ,health and safety problems caused by the physical changes , and other aspects- of the resource 12 • base: such as water, .historic resources, scenic quality, and public services. " The SEIR has failed to meet these requirements. As 'indicated on' FSEIR RESPONSE O=3 (page C&R-122), The Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report does' "not evaluate the economic impacts that may be associated with the development .of the Project site as proposed (i.e„ the use. of City redevelopment funds, competition between unidentified future tenants at the 'Project ,site and' .existing ,retailers -in downtown Petaluma ,and elsewhere, ete.); Although, economic. considerations• may be important in any City decision on the proposed. Project „and should. be addressed prior to action on the proposed Project, under CEQA,,such`economic issues afe,beyond ,the scope.of an Environmental Impact Report, as they, do:not,,re'late directly to physical changes in the environment. Failure to Identify All Unavoidable. Impacts The SEIR failed to identify ;Seismic Hazards as unavoidable, despite concluding that even after mitigation .they will be potentially significant. The ,SE- IR also did noi, .analyze all significant impacts identified by the .1990. EIR for Parcel.A where mitigationswere'-never implemented and thus the impacts are unavoidable. The, 1990 EIR evaluated.,seismi,c hazards;. and `included the following; statement with respect to mitigating seismic hazards' (see DSEIR pages 4-4 And 47-5): ``These, are considered. to remain �. potentially significant because, 'although the proposed ,pit. gations are standard,' acceptable approaches to reducing "the sighificaricel�i of impacts, there is; no way to entirely reduce the potential for adverse impact..The EIR.,prepare- ,s do not consider,lb,ese impacts to be included in of' the City's statement overriding: considerations, however, but recommend that they be handled through the Mitigation Monitoring program for this project. In some instances [e:g., air quality and water surface elevations in Capri Creek] the -eventual level of'development and project design for Parcels B and C will affect the degree of significant of impacts. Design decisions for the future project can maintain impacts at a level of insignificance: Impact potential due to seismic hazard, water contaminants and flooding can be. rendered insignificant through future project design." Although any development within a seismically sensitive area such as Petaluma may be, subject to adverse 'impacts during,a major seismic event, compliance with current Building'Code requirements can be expected to reduce the, potential.for these impacts to an acceptable level. - The SEIR eyaluaies,the Project as proposed (the development of Parcel B and Parcel Cj, and does not address enviroriinental' impacts or mitigation measures associated with the previous development ofParcel A. The SEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze Cumulative Impacts The SEIR summarily concludes, without discussion, that no cumulative impacts are expected "in combination with other pending development applications that could cause significant ® population, housing or employment impacts. This conclusion is flawed for at least'three reasons: 13 1. ''An EIR must provide, analysts - not,sirnply. unsupported conclusion ,; only thus may it • serve its intended purpose, of ihforming Petaluma decision -makers and the public.. ?. By only considering "pending" deyeloprnent. applications the SEIR necessarily does not analyze the "change in the environment: resulting, from the project when•: added .to past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects.;","Pending' developirtent applications " certainly. do not include past projects. Moreover, there is no case law or CEQA�guideline iuliich so narrowly . restricts . " reaso'hably foreseeable projects i6 'pending" development applications. Despite''diat _the public, including' David Keller, apprized Chelsea of numerous reasonably foreseeable; projects ut comments or2-,tlTe Draft'SEIR, no adequate curriidative impact analysis has been conducted. I. The limitation to "significant " population; housing or employment ;impacts ,contradicts ,the CEQA .nia-hd.dt& that a eumuulative impact. analysis. consider �"incremental impacts which maybe individually minor but cumulatively considerable. Oddly, .the ,SEIR. next jumps to .a different conclusion that because °the' proposed project would riot .exceedthe development allowed in� the •General Plan,, "there would: be no. change, in cumulative impacts associated with, the [pr_opos_edj project ,that have not,been considered in the environmental !evaluatioa of the General Plan. ,Thin -too is flawed. As.. discussed above, such conclusooy, statementsavoid the required'analvsis .of past,. present and reasonably foreseeable projects. Even if the "amount and intensity" of development had not been "exceeded," this does not ,mean ipso facto that the impacts are. equivalent; each development..has' ,its: o.wn :unique • footprint'and design which were not known when,°the General Plan EIR was certif ed and which may also affect potential environmental impacts:.Fur„ther, ,the purpose of a; General .Plan .ER, is to evaluate: the.,impacts of the land use constitutioh then adopted. Mere conformity-with.ageneral plan; in :and of itself will not justify a,Ending that. the project has no s gnif cant,environmental effects. Neither lbe. General EIR= on its face_hor.the City at the time of certification intended for that,EIR. to.supplant the,analysis required in EIRs forspecifrc projects. Neither the General Plan EIR or the I990'.EIR for.Parcel A- adequately addressed the regional and area;wide cuinulative impacts of the proposed 4Petaluma Village Marketplace project. Notably, projects are foreseeable now which may not have been reasonably foreseeable at the „time of.cerfif cation of the General Plan EIR of the ,1990 EIR for Parcel.A. Thus 'a cumulative. impact analysis today could differ., Cumulative impacts associated with the Project are addressed on DSEIR page :13-5, as well as in Chapter 5, Chapter 7` and Chapter '8' of the:DSEIR where .related to flooding.issues, traffic and air quality. Development of the Project site.has .been anticipated under the General Plan; and the General, ;Plan_ EIR addressed the area -wide cumulative impacts that could 'be anticipated` with General, Plan bu 1dout (which would, include special commercial development at the Project site); How, ever,.potential Project -specific cumulative impacts associated with flooding, traffic acid air quality received considerable attention'in the relevant. chapters of the DSEIR. At the time -the DSEIR •was published, CEQA Guidelines defined "probable future projects in Section .15;130 '(b) (1) (B) [2] as follows; "Probable future ,projects:" maybe limited -to those projects requiring an agency approval for an application whichhas been. received at the, time the 14 notice of preparation. is:released.; unless abandoned by the ,applicant; projects included in an adopted capital improvements program, general, plan, regional transportation plan, or other similar plan; projects included in a summary of projections of projects .(or development areas designated).'"in a general' plan or a `simi ar plan; projects anti _i I ed_'a _ later phase of a previously approved project-(e.g. a subdivision);, or those public 'agency'projec"t's'fo`r.which' money has been .budgeted':" In the current CEQA Guidelines discussion lof Section';15'130,; '°it ,states: "When analyzing the cumulative impacts- of a project under,1,51'30 (b),(J)",;(A), the Lead Agency is required to discuss not only approved projects under construction and' approved related projects not ,yet under construcion;''but also unapproved °projects, 'current 'under, environmental review With related impacts or which 4resulf 'in significant cumulative impacts." The inclusion of possible future development proposals that may have received'some media attention at the time of NOP issuance, but that have not been, formally submitted to the City for review or environmental evaluation would lead to speculation in developing ,the `cumulative analysis of the proposed Project. As indicated in RESPONSE-0-4 on FSE:IR pages C&R-122 and'C&R-123; The cumulative analysis presented in. the Di ah-Subsequent EIR was, based on' the traffic conditions anticipated to be present in the year 2015 '(for Project-related:curnLil'ati've traffic impacts), -and on the assumed completion of two projects•in.ahe vicinity of the Projectsite that had,been formally submitted to the City of Petaluma for review when 'the Notice of, Preparation for 'th'e Draft Subsequent EIR was distributed (the,Redwobd"'Technology Center project, and tkeo:on-going U.S. Army Corps of Engineers "flood cori''trol pro'ec't). O ther development projects that?have, been formally submitted ® for City review since publication '.o'f the Draft ;Subsequent EIR I, in November; 2002; are not reflected in the Draft Subsequent EIR cumulative analysis (except 'generally as contributors to local traffic in 2015 under General Plan buildout). Future development projects on parcels in the,, vicinity of the Project site. which have not yet been 'formally submitted to the City of Petaluma for review are not reflected in the. Draft. Subsequent EIR cumulative. analysis. Cumulative Traffic Impact.. Analysis Flaws The SEIR concludes that "as discussed in Chapter 7, the proposed project "tivould contribute to the projected cumulative increase in traffic along roadways sand at ,intersections in the vicinity. " From this 'statement, it is impossible to,say if the EIR is informing the City and the public either if ,there is a cumulative impact or if `this ,impact is' signif cant:; 'Thus the SEIR does not comply with CEQA Guideline Section I5130, which requires„th i'the.,discussion'"of'ciimulative impacts fl f the .iri""pacts and thei re ect the severity o i-likelihood''of occurrence. f , the` cumulative impact is not significant; the SEIR is 're4..uired . to briefy` indicate why the cumulative impact is not significant, id&tilyhigficts and analysis'supp'orting tkat conclusion. I, Reference to Chapter' ;T does not disclose a proper or full cutifiu'lative traffic. impact discussion. Under the title 'future conditions ' ; the SEIR reveals, that the Level9f Service criteria were applied to 4 scenarios:, "What is� missing is 'examination of past plus,°present plus f:4ture projects. Indeed, the modeling which J"Ieluded' undisclosed. historical trends was replaced, apparently because the model yielded results characterized only as unstable. 15 Also, because the.SEI, does not reveal what;, projects were tincluded iti the *calculation of 'future • t, aff c anticipated for .201 S.", .it is impossible, to know if all `'reasonably for eseealile prgjects'` were included as required .by CEQA. It certainly appears not; elsewhere:the SEIR states. `that only two projects were included'in the cumulative analysis — the Redwood Technology Park and a. downstream, flood- control ,project:. -As 'discussed infra, there are numerous .reasoiwble, foreseeable projects:'in, addition to these two:, Thus, the cumulative traff c analysis is again flawed because;of its myopic focus; in clear contravention of controlling CEQA law. DSEIR page 1:.3-5 provides:.a brief summary of .,cumulative 'impacts addressed. elsewhere -in the document; without,regeating the: entire tex_t of the relevant portions of'Chapter 5,jo cumulative cover°traffic impacts:in detail. In terms of Project -related traffic impacts, the Project would contribute to cumulative 'impacts where ,the level of sere>ice at a particular intersection..evaluated would decline below acceptable levels either with or without the. Project: The intersection of Petaluma 'Boulevard North7Washington Street would operate :at unacceptable levels of service in`the'absence of the Project, .therefore, the Project would. contribute to this significant cumulative impact (Impact 7.1 and 7.5, 1denti;fied= as significant and unavoidable in.�the DSEIR). The:'Old Redwood Highway segment is:;pr:ojected°to continueoperating at an unacceptable level of service even without the Project; -therefore, the Project would coniribute,to'this significant cumulative, impact (Impacts 7:2 and .7..7; 'identified as significant land unavoidable in -the DSEIR). Other,;impacts :addressed on DSEfR pages 7-23 through- 7-26-are evaluated under the heading "Future Plus'Project,,Condifions- (Cumulafive)"; and these would also be, considered significant.cumulative impacts to which the proposed,Project;would contribute traffic. • In :the °traffic analysis, all previous 4evelopinent (`°past" conditions) is included in� the traffic model under "Existing, Conditions". As indicated on DSEIR page. 7-1, the, traffic analysis --relied on input from City of Petaluma Staff in `developing modeling assumptions .related to :future development to 2015' (see FSEIR pages C&°R44. through C&�R-16 for a .d seussi'on :of future traffic projections, applied traffic growth. assumptions; and the ' consideration of specific development_ proposals), The DSEIR presents .the results of the modeling conducted,, and no earlier jinodeling was'"replaced". Chapter 7 concludes that the 'future plus project conditions'`'result-in,potentiallyaigizifcant impacts to. 3 intersections and I roadway- .The Cityand the public, deprived of a proper and full cumulative traffic impact,' have not been informed if the` I.OS for .these intersections/roadwway, would :degrade further or if there are other; intersections -and roadways `which also would be significantly- impacted: ,In addition, as discussed infra; without the requisite :analysis cumulative.. impacts,. the. E1R cannot' have adequately discussed mitigations for such impacts., :Project -related traffic, -impacts are addressed at length on DSEIR pages 7-42 through 7=27.'The tables° provided in Chapter 1provide the reader wi ,an accurate assessment of anticipated traffic levels, of service .at each. of'the ,15 'intersections evaluated for the DSEIR based on the results .of the traffic modeling conducted. • 16 o , I' 'I ' Curntil'ative Aesthetic listP act Anal psis Flaws The ,SEIR states that the project would "contribute 1b 'a cumulative reduction'" in 'the number of open areas currently 'by those traveling along the 10-1 corridor: "O •er time, 'the on -going conversion''` would be expected to permanently change,. the existing visual character of rural Petaluma. This statement does not disclose to the public or the Council whether the impact is significant, and thus fails- ;to.comply with CEQA. Correspondingly, by,avoiding classifying the impact as significant, the ,SEIR` .makes no `attempt to discuss potential mitigations for this cumulative impact. 'In comparison, Chapter 11 of the SEIR''discuss.es the individual aesthetic impacts of the project and ;concludes that there is -a. signif ca it'aimpaet from 1) loss of scenic resources, 2) degradation of 'visual' character and 3) "ilicreased'light glare and then recommends mitigation measures, On DSEIR page 11-5,' .the Tas. ! paragraph. reads, as follows:• "Although the General Plan anticipates development ' at thop,Project'; site, the proposed -conversion, of two vacant parcels to commercial use would contribute „to :a cumulativew reduct'i'on in the --,number' of "open" areas Y Y g g n the {Petal currently seen b those iravelin salon the U.S.. 101'' corridor t urna, area. Over time, the on -going conversion of additional sites in ;.this corridor which .currently provide "open" visual features would be expected'to,perm,anent'ly change the existing visual character of what has long been perceived (emphasis; added) as a rural portion ,of Petaluma'."' It'' would' be speculative to attempt to determine' when ,(or if) 'future development along. this corridor would come to be subjectively perceived 'as a'. significant adverse effect relative ,to the current visual appearance of property along a major, freeway where much development has already • taken place, and for this reason it cannot be identified as a signiffcant cumulative environmental impact. Cumulative Hydrology Impact Flaws Chapter S of the SEIR discussed. Hydrologic impacts including flooding, water quality and erosion/sedimentation. The SEIR fails .to include a valid analysis of .cumulative hydrologic impacts. First, there is no analysis of the change in the environment 'resulting from the project when p '� sonabl „ gres'eeable projects. 'The ' my other identified project added to past, present, and rea y f p � o considered ,tn this cum ulative":analysis is the "Redwood Technology Center. ",,Thus, the SEIR's cumulative 'impact analysis:'only considered ]"'two projects ". There is no consideration of 1) any past projects, including ,Parcel 'A development or any other pr.:oject' in' ,'the, Petaluma River floodplain, 2) other existing developments or 3) any reasonabty foreseeable future projects other than the Redwood Tech Park. The SEIR remarkably even ignores the Army Corps downstream flood control project, despite, -describing future projects for Pill -poses of cumulative impacts as including this flood"project. The SEIR did not consider the' cumulative hydrologic impacts despite .acknowledging highway commercial uses to ,theimmediate west, industrial and residential' east across U.S. 101, and 'the Petaluma Livestock Auction Yard to the north, and also the development of Parcel A. There are ®also numerous reasonable' foreseeable projects which were not considered as discussed fully below. 17 s� . CEQA does not permit a constrained cumulative impact analysis of regional impacts. `"Wecause. ,of the proximity ofthe'.Prbjec.t site .to ;the, Petaluma, River; hydrologic issues are of'.'primary importance -to the, Project SEIR 11 validity. The 'SEIR.'s flooding, model, considered the Petaluma: River downstream. of Willow Brook: through Peta'himalRiver, upstreampf-Lynch ,Ci_e&k:,Howei!er, no analysis ,of cumulative',,im act, of,'past, present d nd reasonable, foreseeahle° projects located p even withih, this ".1im-dedstretch of the River was included' in this SEIR. In. Kings fflm Bureau, v. 'City of Hanford, the ,Court set, aside an EIR'whielh failed to consider "the ;entire air,hdsin, in it, cumulative impacts analysis.. So here, this SEIR is' flawed for .taking such a constrained approdch to cumulative hydrologic ologic impacts which hich -is, of particular. concern,given� the --w inevitability of flooding in the Petaluma Riverflb,64PIOUL Secohd, the SEIR fails to Consider the cumulative effect of flooding on the. Petaluma River when combined with its three tributaries which `run'through, the. proposed project. "In addition 16 the Petaluina River; several s all 'three er, 1tributary streams 'traverse the Project site Al ,streams drain under Highway 101 through culverts, cross the Project site,' and discharge to the Petaluma River. Third,' the SEIR completely 'ay.6ids a. cumulative "water quality" analysis. The, SEIR impermissibly assumes; without any ,supporting. data or analysis that, "with the prpposedw.ater. quality miti tibn,,measuresindividual:prqject in place, no Sigh ificaw't. cumulative water - . ga for each quality impacts, Would result from ,thee wo projects. Ho. ever, under :CEQA the, required analysis qf7cumulative impacts cahnot.bedv6ided on 'the, -unsupported assumpt ion that whatever impacts other, projects may, have will be mitigated,. Here the 'SEIR' does, not . even; ,mentio Redwood Technology Park mitigations upon,wNch, it relies. An adequate cumulative impact analysis would'- avoid ,such unsupportedc'onclusions of insignificanc_e- and consider all past; ,present and foreseeable projects as -discussed above. Although the DSEIR does not provide a listing of i9l.l. structures, roadways or other _man-made objects .that -currently ekist within ffie. Petalurna,kiverfloodislain, the niodelifig conducted forthe ,evaluation of Project -related hydrology impacts took into account all! existing; development within the -study; area indeveloping the baseline values (pTp-Project). As indicated above, the 'M 'firnited, the "reasonably for Oil, M DSE foreseeable. projects" to, those: either underway At the time; of pr NOR issuance :(the; USACOE flood control. project),or for' which the City �:hadjeceived a -formal development application at the time of NOP'isguan6e: (Redwood, Technology Park),. -.P_he flow from all thbutaries to, the, Petaluma River is Also taken into;accovrit in themoddling. The DSEIR, analysis offloodih effectsi'by4ts; very nature, provides discussion . in lerrns, of the cumulative. context, ',as,that,is how the modeling geiietates.,,Pro'j*ect=rel'ated, changes in current, ;flow rates and water surface elevations. .Although all of the specific: measures to protect water quality that would be'_ included: in the required SWPPP had not 'been id6ritified for either the., Project or the Redwood, 'technology Center ,at the tirnebf QSEM I publicatibn (November 2002), the Types of measures c-ornmonly inc)uded .in. SWPPP are, described, in Start arthe Source, and: otherwater,qudlity publications, and approvdFof an S)YP I PP -that, incorporates such measures by RWQCB signifies that this regulatory 0 II t agency believes that the effective° implementation of the S-WPPP would reduce potential water quality impacts to a level of less than significant, Cumulative Biological Resources Impact Analysis Flaws Astonishingly, the SEIR''has no analysis of the cumulative impact. of this project 'to biological resources. A thorough cumulative impacts,analysis is particularly important here because of the substantial evidence of impacts- from, the project alone: Eight significant adverse impacts from the project are identified. in respect'to loss of seasonal wetlands, riparian habitat, pond turtles, red legged frogs, 'nesting yellow" warblers, nesting northern harriers,, nesting white-tailed kites and'degradation of water 'quality..Yet; here there is not: even any mention of cumulative impacts or impacts from past, present and future projects. THE DSEIR discussionofispecial status species covers, those potentially, occumng in the Project vicinity based on habitat requirements, based on a records search of the CDFG NDDB in June 2000 and the Jones & Stokes Associates, studies of the Project area in.1997 (see DSEIR pages,6- 6 through 6-23). Plants and animals that have"'been formally.designated "special status. species" have been given protected status due largely to cumulative "damage 'to their preferred habitats. For this reason, any Project -related impact: to "these species or their habitat could also be regarded as a cumulative impact, although.not specifically identified as such in the SEIR.; In addition, the SEIR has, not an.dlyzed the cumulative' impact to ,biological resources of developing Parcels B and ('in the contev of developmenrof-the "abandoned railroad right of way and of Parcel A. Significant vegetation was lost, ,a riparian :area was filled, a wetlands corridor and wetlands acreage were 'lost with the development of the abandoned railroad right - of way. r The SEIR evaluates the Petaluma 'Village Marketplace Project as' shown in REVISED DSEIR Figure 1.3: Project Site Plan on page C&R-363 of the FSEIR. All development proposed at the time of DSEIR publication (.November 2002), "including any development "proposed within the abandoned railroad right=of.--way, ;is evaluated in the SEIR. The- existing conditions discussions presented in the various chapters of the DSEIR are based on conditions as they existed when the Notice, of Preparation of a" Draft Subsequent EIR was circulated in, July, 2002, and any ,habitat modifications or ,other 'changes :in ,biological resources that may have occurred within the abandoned "railroad right=of-way prior .to that: time would .not now be: regarded as. having "any Project -related "i"mpacts associated with the development of Parcel B .and Parcel C as "currently proposed. „ Failure to Comply. ►vii&CEQA Guidelines,Section 15130 The SEIR discussion fails,to.,ioelude, either 1) a list of past, present, and p obable future projects producing related"' or cumulative impacts, including those projects,outside,the cot' of the City, ® or 2) a summary of projections contained in an adopted .general plan or related planning 19 r' document,. or in a prior- environmental document which, has been adopted or certified, which describes or eva'luateId,,,regional or! area,wide conditions con.t-ibuting to the' cumulative impact., Further, the. SEIR' fails to define the geographic :scope of the area affected by .lhe cumulative effects. and fails7o provide a reasonable.explgnation for this geographic limitation. As indicated in FSEIR RESPONSE 0741 the .cumulative analysis ;presented in 'the Draft Sub:se.quent ,EIR was based on. the assumed_ completion. of two.project's in 'the vicinity of the Project site that had -been formally.subroitted to the City'o'f Petalunia'for review when the Notice of Preparation, for the Draft .Subsequent, EIR was distributed (the Redwood, Technology Center project, and-Ahe on=going U.S.. Army Corps of Engineers flood control project).. Other development projects ,that have been formally submitted Tor City review since,publcation,:of the Draft Subsequent EIR in November • 2002. pare :not. reflected in the;. Draft Subsequent. EIR cumulative analysis. (except generally as contributors to local, traffic in 2.01-5 under, General Plan buildout). 'Future development projects on .parcels:in the vicinity of the Project -sitewhich h=ave 'not yet been formally submitted to .the City of Petaluma for review are not, reflected in the Draft. Subsequent EIR cumulative analysis. Figure 1.1i Aerial :Photograph of Project Site' ,and Vicinity (DSEIR paged-3) provides readers:,iwith.a;"sense of'the .area, surrounding„the Project site, although the DSEIR traffic .analysis evaluated Project -related traffic; impacts at a. number of iniersections'beyond.the area shown in this .figure. In terms, of identifying the geographic .limits of cumulative •impacts, much depends on the type of impacts considered„ as s'orne' would relate to the Petaluma River floodplain, some would relate'to'the entire San Francisco'Bay air basin, and some would relate to threats to .special status: species statewide. Firm ;geograph`ic boundaries ` beyond which Project -related curriulatiwe environmental impacts were not considered were not identified iri the SEIR. Failure to Adequately Analyze the CuWulative.Impact of Past Projects The SEIR also acknowledges that it has excluded the most important past project — the development- of.Parcel A, — the existing 195, 000 square, foot factory mall development. ,The SEIR expressly focuses on development of Parcels B and C, "and not on the environmental ;effects associated with the development of Parcel A. " In addition, the SEIR' does, not include the increme.'ntal impactsof past projects' while acknowledging such, development projects exist in. the immediate surroundings. ,(Highway com-Mercial- uses to the immediate west; industrial and residential uses east across .U.S. I'01 idcluding.but, not limited,to Redwood Business Park III;, Petaluma Lives lock, Yard to the north.) The development of Parcel- A was completed prior to ,the circulation.of thelNbtice. of Preparation, and .the -DSEIR does not address environmental impact's that . were;previously associated with the development of Parcel A.. Other °previous projects in the vicinity of the 'Project,site •completed.. prior to the issuance of the Notice of`Prepara6be can be seen in Figure,1.2: Aerial Photograph of.Project Site and Vicinity (DSEIR page 1-1). These, include the construction of:,a four lane freeway (U.S. '101), and residential and commercial development projects. Environmental iriipacts' that may have been associated with these previous projects would properly be addressed in. the environmental review .documents associafed, with each individual project. For the purposes of the °SEIR;, the previous completion of ,these projects and any resulting environmental' effects 2Y such previous development ,may,have had are taken into consideration -,as part of the existing setting for the, proposed„Proj'ect. Failure to. Adequately Analyze the Cumulative Impact of Reasonably Foreseeable: Future .Projects The. SEIR states that its consideration of future projects for the purposes of cumulative impacts ryas limited to only two p"rolec(s..— 1) 'the Redwood Technology Park,ai:d .2) a downstream flood control `project. There are numerous redsoiiably fo'rese'eable projects in addition_ to these two, including, intra alia, 1) the .30'.acre Neighborhood at Deer ,Creek..application:directly east of 101 (commercial and -residential); 2) the Rohnert park tribal casino Federated Indians of Graton Indian (impacts likely relative, to traffic, Sonoma Co: Water :A ' - ncy .water, power generation, wastewater and emergency services), 3)' .Rainier -US. 1,01, .Freeway Interchange and'/or Crosstown Connector; 4) a, major residential subdivision atCPetaluma'Blvd and Jesse Lane, S) the possibility that the existing mail at Parcel �A will be;Ieveled and rebuilt, 6) projects, in the Central Petaluma Specific Plan project area, 7) he Johnson Property apartments — zoned.for over 300 units of housing; 80 projects related to annexation of'north,west Petaluma, 9) big box development at the site of,the,existing Pacific Cinema theater'; 10) chain stores added to existing retail shopping at .Plaza North, Plaza South and Washington Square', 1,1) - redevelopment of Kenilworth Junior High School. site, 1.2), development at- the Adobe Lumber site, 13) new housing projects at Magnolia &enue and Paula Lane, and 14) expansi'on' of Santa Rosa Junior College. At a minunum, the SEIR should have. considered ,those, reasonably. foreseeable future projects Which the SEIR characterized as "the level of development that the City" ultimately anticipates in the vicinity of the Project site, ,referencing Figures 2.1 and 2.2, In fact," because of the regional nature of many of.ihese;impaats (e.g:. traffic water, downto:wn,Petaluma blight), the cumulative impact analysis such consider projects outside the "immediate" vicinity (e.g. flood issues within the floodplain). The cuMidati,ve, impact analysis for all impacts is ,inadequate as it failed to consider these projects. CEQA requires that the cumulative ,impact analysis include„ "reasonably foreseeable " future projects. The SEIR limits cumulative impacts analysis to those, formally received" by the City and "considered complete. '` In doing so, it replaces the' CEQA s standard of reasonably foreseeable fiiture projects with ` absolutely foreseeable "future projects. The cumulative impacts flaws discussed above are .procedural. flaws in the EIR, and -area not based .on a difference in opinion nor refuted simply by substantial evidence. If the City were to certify the SEIR in ,its current form, it would be exposing itself to.judicia1 scrutiny on these. very issues. "lilt is' vitally important that an EIR avoid .minimizing the, cumulative impacts. Rather, it must reflect a conscientious effort to provide public agencies and the general public with adequate and relevant detailed information about ,them." A -cumulative impact analysis which understates information concerning the severity and significance of cumulative impacts impedes meaningful public discussion and skews the decisionmaker's perspective concerning the environmental consequences of the project, the necessity for mitigation measures, and the appropriateness of project approval. " 21 At the, time the DSEIR was published (November 2002), CEQA :Guidelines defined "probable, future projects in Section 15.130 (b) (1) (B) [2] =as follows:°"Probable tfuture projects may be- 1I'm 1t.ed to those projects requiring, an agency approval for an application. whicfi,- * been received at the "time the notice of'preparation; is released, unless .abandoned by'the applicant; projects included'in an adopted capital improvements program, general plan, regional transportation plan, ,or other- similar'plan; projects included 'in a;lsummary of'proj'ections.of projects.(or development areas designated) ,in a ;generab plan or a; similar plan,; projects anticipated as later phase; of a previously approved project (e.g. a subdivision) ror those. public ancy pr geojects° ,for which money has been budgeted.." `In the current; CEQA Guidelines discussion of Section '1 S 130, •.it, states; "When analyzing the cumulative impacts ,of a :project under 1 Sl°30 (b) (1) ;(A), the Lead Agency 'is required' to discuss not- only approved projects under construction .and :.approved' -related projects not yet 'under construction, b.ut also ,unapproved projects: current under environmental review with related,;irnpacts or..which' result in significant,,cumulative impacts, 'The, inclusion..of possible: future development, proposals' that may .have received. some rnedi'a, attention at, the time of NOP.issuance,, but that; had, not been fori-nally submitted, to: the City, for review or environmental ev.aluati'oriprior to the issuance of theNotice.of?Preparationwou;ld,lead to. speculation in developing the: cumulative. analysis of the proposed Project, None, of the�project listed in the comment above had been, forna'lly submitted to the City 'Of 'Petaluma for environmental, review, prior to the'issuance of iheyNo.tice of Preparation (July 2002). Inadequate Analysis of Proposed lkhtigafions Land use Policy Mitigation FldWs The SEIR fails to address any mit' - tion'related 70 laud 7use plan policies.and regulations. - No potentially significant.impacts.were identified in the.Land Use and Planning Policysection of the D,SEIR, so no associated mitigation measures were necessary. Hydrologic Mitigation Flaws There is no analysis of mitigation for the °hydrologic impacts of the detention basin to be constructedd on. the northeast corner of Parcel':C. As indicated''in'FSEIR RESPONSE JJ-20, the: detention basin is only proposed ,for water quality mitigation; any runofftiming effects will be incidental. According to the -civil.p lans;,stormwater will be.routed to•the'basin through subsurface storm drains from, all of the building area and part of the parking lot. There is' no analysis of'fnitigation. for the hydi=ologic impacts of the new village Drive Which; will cross' the Petaluma River. The construction of the proposed Village. 'Drive: bridge - was included in the hydrological modeling, conducted for the DSEIR, Mitigation .Measure 5...1.1 (DSEIR, page. 5-20) would .reduce Potential Impact 5A 6 Increase 100-year Water Surface Elevation in Petaluma River to -a level of -less thansi'gnificant • 22 • There is no afialysis, of the. effectiveness of the .proposed hydrologic mitigations. For.example, Mitigation S. S.1 claims to minimize, the intrusion of buildings into the f ood plains.' Yet, there is no discussion of where the buildings will be located. Nor,is there disclosure of the extent or location of the Petaluma.flood plain pre and'posf project construction. 'Without disclosure of the location of the buildings and the extent .and" location of the Mood plain, the Council and'the public are unable to determine the effectiveness of the proposed .mitigations. The location of buildings pro.posed'at`the' Project site is shown in Figure 1J.- Project Site Plan on DSEIR page 1-13. Those portions of the Project site that are within the 'floodplain of the Petaluma ,River and tribu_tahes.,,are, shown in ; Figure IV-131_2. , FEMA FLOOD ZONE AND CROSS-SECTION LOCATION ° MAP in DRAFT ..,ENVIRONMENTA -IMPACT_REPORT — _ , RIVER OAKS/PETALUMA OUTLET VILLAGE MASTER PLAN ,(Mareh 1990) and FSEIR Figure 2: Floodwa, � odp'1'a1.iin in th_e. Vicinity, of "the 1.Project Site (page C&R-409). y ,andFlo It is improper to consider a significant' impact, to,. be- mitigated to, a'point of less than significance based solely on engineering standards,' er , particularly' where as he, water quality has been determined to be Section,3,03 limited: The five mitigation measures .identifi.ed in the DSEIR (Chapter 5) to,mitigate potential water quality impacts associated, With development of .the Project site as, -proposed would, in combination, be expected 'to. reduce these impacts to a level of° less than significant. These include the development and implementation of a Storm Water, Pollution Prevention Plan, to be ® approved by the, Regional Water 'Quality Control .Board as part of the NPDES permitting. process.. Biological Resources Mitigation'Flaws CEQA 'requires that where several -measures are available to mitiga'te,an;.impact, the basis for selecting a particular ,measure, should be identified: The SEIR fails to provide this basis for proposed biologicalresource mitigations.: Where mitigation ...measures are, identified in DSEIR' Chapter :6 `(Biological Resources), implementation of all :measures'id'enti 'ed to reduce the each identified, impact, would need to be implemented to reduce these impacts to a level of less than significant.' The SEIR defers mitigations Without specifying performance standards or criteria. Performancestandards associated with the-issuance'of the Clean Water Act Section.4'04 Permit, the Section 40:1 certification and. the Streambed Alteration Agreement will not be defined .until negotiations have been,completed"between. the Project -Applicant and the appropriate xegulatory agencies (U.S. Army .Cofps°of Engineers, Regional: Water Quality Coritrol Board, California Fish and Game). The SEIR has failed,, tp,,!considei-,'or` discuss the feasibility of prop .mitigations.. Obtaining u permits and agreements f pm other agencies nmy not be feasible.JAny"niltlgatlon based on fiscal 23 contributiwisftoin the: Chelseagi,-e likely infeasible�en -that gil Chels' ea>hasjailed to timely pay $L2 Million Dollars into ,an -in-terest-bea i . ng escrow as .,required byfl&s6lation #91-122 and: Resolution #91-136 ' .0 A r, c- mitigations:, The. SEM fails .to analyze the feasibility o Off, I f the mitigation in-liklit of (7helsea's, history this proposed' -99, 1 y- in . ..s� regard. Likewise� the SEIR avoids di.�eussio)7i;,?ffeasibility ofproposed ini ationsba"&d,6ii"�eszilts-f;,;otii,,ilie:Parcel A'MitigatiolI tig s r Monitoring qnja Reporting Plan.. In Chapter,6, the, DSEI.R. presents only those.rh i , tigations that have been considered. feasible. It does not -,..address issues related, toJunding" the mitigation measures Wetland/Riparian Mitigation,for- the, Existing 0 . ut,1,6t Mall :is addressed dressed on DSEIR pages ':&-2'2 and 6-23. The effectiveness, of'previous mitigation associated with the development -of'.Parcel' A did. not constrain the; DSEIR',s identification of .!biological mitigation. the :proposed ti inliga ion. measures ki, develo,ptn'en'tofParcel :Band .Parcel -C. The SEJR Mis to diseusstnitigation s1o;rjare plants - 'despile:thet�equiretnenit of Resolution: 9-1-136. that -,a sb urvqyjr. such plants be undertaken. As in - dicated on 1) , SEIR page 6-6; no Mpiieeial status plants were. observed during studies conducted, in. it Prqjeci area in I 07,,and its is ,unlikely - hat. thesfte,stjpp*OftS, 'special status plant species given the dislurbqdnatureof thesite ''and low qUality i of existing 1,g ,habitats. The SEIRjailed to analyze miiigplio'ns-for .all of the -,species present'on. the site,. including the. Sacramento spitta -1, despite the. comments-6f the Dept. of and Game. ", Potential Projeci-related. Ainpacts to special status, species are addressedon DSEHR, pages 6-26 through ,6--'3l.,See RESPONSE F-_3' on FSEIR -p4ge§C&R-67 and C&R-48:for a- discussion of. the Sacramento splittai'l and potential Pr6j,ctt�related''lmp4cts.to-this sppqies;, The SElkjalled to defiine the location of wetlands .on theprojectand the location and extent Of Wet mitigations: Areas Subject to Section 404,Clean Water AcOurisd"166"oh are,shown in DSEIR,,Figure,.6.1 'arid " Figure 6.2 (pages 6-4 and 6,5). These.,gqres both, show potential Sect i, "or! 404 JU sd' ctiondl ri 1 Wetlands on Parcel. B and Parcel CA Wetlands Mitigation P1an-wfll'-heC4 to be. de'veloppd by the Project Applicant in order, to,obtain A; Section 404, Peftit from, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and. such., a plan would define, the. extent of wet-fand&-Imitigation to the' satisfaction of the, Corps: The SVIR -fails- to discuss,feasible.the . &2&acre abandoned' mitigation for the chat; esJ railroad right ,of 'Way; Sign vegetation: was Jost, a,rip of ,riparian" area was flied . a Wetlands corridor and Wetlands acreage . were, lost witkth is devel _q qpj7i6nt. Yet, the SEIR fWs to discuss any mitigptionfor these impacts:. The. SEIR evaluates the Pet.alumaIN , illage Marketgl'ace Project as. shown in REVISED OSEIR Figure, fj: Project Site• Nan on page., C&R-363 of, the, - F&LR. All I development, proposed at the, time of DSE1R publicationjNftbri-iber 2002.), including any developirfen't proposed - d - ;the wi in 24 abandoned railroad right-of-way, is evaluated in- the SEIR. The existing conditions discussions ® presented in the various chapters of the DSEIR. are based on conditions as they existed when the Notice. of Preparation of a'Dmft Subsequent EIR was. circulated in July, 2002, and any habitat modifications or other changes in biological resources that mayhave occurred within the abandoned railroad' right -of way prior, to that 'time would not, now be- regarded as having any Project -related impacts associated with the development of Parcel B' and Parcel C as currently proposed. As no Project -related impacts have been identified for developmentthat has already taken place in the,vicinity°of Parcel B and Parcel C, no mitigation measures have been identified. The SEIR violates Resolution 91-136' which required'environmental review of Parcels B and C to provide analysis" of mitigation, to minimize adverse, impacts 'to. Capri Creek, the Petaluma River .and other natural physical' features, including riparian habitat, seasonal wetlands and freshwater marsh. Potentially significant Project=related impacts related Id local waterways and associated habitats are identified in DSEIR' Chapter 5 and'Chapter 6;"wi'th also incorporate'mifigation measures that could reduce these impactsi to -a level of less, than' significant. The SEIR further violates Resolution 91,-136 as there has; been no preparation of a riparian enhancement plan for Parcels B :and C, including identification, of creek setback based on environmental values, hvdro"logic constraints, and protection ,and preservation of existing habitat. As indicated in Mitigation Measure 6.13 on DSEIR page. 6-25, the Project Applicant will be required to develop and implement. a plan incorporating measures to;meet all wetlands mitigation requirements as may be required by the U.S. Army Corps of .Engineers, the Regional Water Quality Control Board and%orihe,..California Department of Fish and' Game. Such a plan could be expected to incorporate riparian enhancement features. Traffic and Circulation Mitigation Flaws CEQA required that where several measures are available .to mitigate an impact, the basis for selecting a particular measure should be identified. The SEIR'jails to provide this basis for proposed traffic and circulation mitigations. 'In DSEIR Chapter 7 (Traffic and Circulation), a set of three possible mitigation„ measures are identified for Potential' Impact 7,.b and Potential I_mpact T5, 'all ,intended' to. reduce traffic congestion at the inferseciion of Petaluma Boulevard. North/Washington�,Street. As explained.in the DSEIR, 'where are real problems that could prevent. the effective i,mplernentaiion of Aany of these mitigation measures, For that reason, these' two potential impacts Have"'been identified as significant, and unavoidable. The SEIR, defers. mitigations without specifying performance sia,rdaids or criteria. As indicated on DSEIR ,page 7-I.2; where intersections would perform at. LOS C (or better) for ® streets and LOS D (or better) for intersections, there would be no significant .Project -related 25 impact. Where mitigation measures identified can -;reduce LOS' values at evaluated intersections to these LOS standards,, ,the Project -related impacts would. be reduced to a level ,of "less than, •. signi''f cant- through the implementation of those mitigation measures. The •SEIR. has failed to consider or discuss the. feasibility of proposed mitigations.. Any Mitigation based on fiscal contributions from. the, Chelsea are likely infeasible given that Chelsea has failed to timely pay $1,2 Million Dollars., into 'an' interest -bearing escrow as required �hy Resolution #91-122 and Resolution #91-136 for, ,traffic mitigations.:The:,SEIR fails to analyze: the feasibility, of the proposed ,mitigation in light of Chelsea 's history in this regard. In response to comments the SEIR acknowledged that, .in the absence of funding;. effective implementation of proposed traff e mitigations is in. doubt. Likewise, th'e SEIR, avoids discussion. of feasibility of proposed miligati .ns,based.on.results from, the Parcel A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan. In 'Chapter 7, considerable 'thought was given ,to the feasibility of .mitigation measures, as witnessed by the identifcati'on of several' Project -,related impacts. as significant and unavoidable, despite the identifcation of, possible mitigation, measures that appeared to, be i"n,feasible. The effectiveness of previous mifi'gafion assoociated,. with the development of .Parcel A., did .riot constrain the DS.EIR's identification.of traffic "mitigation measures for the'proposed development of Parcel B and.Parcel C. The SEIR failed ,to. consider feasible traffic mitigatip"ns,, including those proposed ,by Calirans. The, SEIR incorporated all traff c; mitigation measures identified as feasible bythe :Lead Agency„ the City of Petaluma.. • The SEIR fails to comply with Resolution 91136; Condition 51 (E) 's requirement: that. speeific " and `'area -wide." traffic, mitigations associated with projects on B .& ;C shall, be identified concurrent'with.,the.environmental analysis -of the.specifw.project. Traffic ;impact&,as9ocidted with, the,ptoposet Project (the development of Parcel B and Parcel C) are evaluated in DSEIR pages 7-14 through 7-27. Mitigation of:Cumulative Impacts CEQA has responded';to; the: problem of in'erernental environmental degradationby requiring anal As.,of cumulative impacts. Bv,a.voiding-proper,analysis of the cumulative impacts; the •SEIR makes no ahemptlo discuss, potential mitigationsfor,any cumulative impact:, Mitigation measures that would .reduce Proie'd=related :impacts to, a level of less than significant would also, reduce :any Project -related contribution ,to cumulative impacts to ;a .level, of less than sigrii'fcant. VI. The EIR Failed, to Adequately respondto ,Comments. The governing standard for.response;to comments'M aFEN -requires that. , • :26 "in preparing the final EIR,. the [agenc ] must describe the disposition of each of the significant • environmehtal issues raised and must particularly set forth J!,,i detail; the reasons why the particular comments and „objections were .rejected and why, the ,[agencyJ considered. the development of the p„ro�ect to be of overriding importance 'A, conclusory statement "unsupported by, -'empirical or experimental data;. ,scientific authorities, or explanatory information of any kind" not only fails to crystallize issues (citation) .but "affords n& basisfior a comparison" of the problems involved,in the alternatives.. "n(Gitation) Moreover, where comments froin responsible experts or sister agencies disclose 'new or conflicting data or opinions that cause concern that the agency may.,not'have fully evaluated the project and its alternatives, these comments may noi'sim 1. be i° nored. There',must be.' odJ.ctith.'•reason'ed analysis,in response. Y P Y g go f (Emphasis added.) (Citaiion,.oinitted:) We conclude, thdrthe [agency'sj failure°to respond with specificity in the final EIR to comments and objections, to the draft EIR. "renders the final EIR fatally defective. " (People v. County of Kern (1979) 39 Cal'App.3,d 830, 847-841; Stanislaus Natural heritage Project v. County of Stanislaus (1996). 4.&Cal.App.4`h 182, .191) The SEIR 's Response to Comments (RTC) fails to 1) describe„ .the disposition of each of. the significant environmental issues raised,, 2) set forth in detail` the. reasons why the particular comments and objections were .rejected, 3) set forth .why -'the i.City considered the development of the project to be of overriding:importance, 4) avoid conclusory'statements "unsupported by data or explanatory information, and S) provide good faith, reasoned analysis. Where modifications to the OSEIR have been made in response to a specific comment, this is noted in the FSEIR's RESPONSE :to that; particular comment and in the "'Revisions to the Draft ® Subsequent EIR" sectiori of the FSEIR. DFG Comments DFG is the state agency,with responsibility, under,the common law public trust doctrine, the Fish & Game Code and the C,alifornia Endangered Species .Act for ensuringrthe long-term survival of California wildlife and 'habitat: In that role DFG's comments' demand •gdod faith and reasoned analysis .and detailed reasons whythe particular. comments and objections were rejected. 'The SEIR in -its. current form fails'to meet.these,CEQA standards;,:For.example, -DFG comments that the SEIR must "analyze,,, impacts to. steelhead migration and rearing habitat" because of the project 's potential to impact,the Petaluma. River; its rrparran I tivo'odldnds' and 'adjacent wetlands. DFG �coirrmentsi that 'rble 6-3° dnd: Table 6'=4 are' inaccurate: regarding steelhead, Sacramento spittail, California freshwater' shrimp., 'DFG comments tll i ihe" Draft SEIR 'con`cluYi ns regarding impacts to fish at p., 6-31. are "not justified" and ' that steelhead; Sacramento .spittail, California freshwater shrimp could be "significantly impacted" by a new' bridge! and ,by utility crossings.. The RTC responds that mitigation for a portion of the project Village Drive Bridge. — would reduce effects 'to steelhead (Response F-1) Under CEQA, mitigation does :not substitute for, the analysis recommended by DFG as effective and feasible mitigation can only be, proposed once the impacts have ,been analyzed The RTC avoids any discussion of impacts from utility crossings. Inaccuracies pointed by DFG in Table 6-3, Table 6-4, and regarding inaccuracies in ® the Draft SEIR discussion of steelhead presence and spawning habitat at the project site are 27 completely, gfiored: No changes are made in the Final SEIR. and no respoimsiwe analysis is provided regarding "impacts " to steelhead. • DFG co-Minents that. insufficient inforination is presented in the- DRAFT SEIR to justify a conclusion that!vo mitigation is needed. DFG then suggests :S,separate feasible _mitigations for the impacts. DFG, foresees to special status f sli. The RTCprovides no ,resporise,'to this comment. See -Response F-6. The. RTC provides no response to DFG'scomment that focused surveys may be needed'10 confirm °that there will be no impacts to shrimp. DFG comments that there 'is',no discussion of the.,irimpacts 1 of the proposed river -walk (rail and suggesis,a mitigaCion ,hatI,the river -walk trail and any landscaping.be located outside. the 100 foot landscape setback. -:.The RTC does notprovide the requested impact :an_alysis or address DFG's comments;, instead the-R.TC reiterates:tlre proposed project. No revisions were made ,to Chapter 6 of the SEIR in response to DFG 's substantive comments. Responses to the comments on the, DSEIR submitted by, the Califorriia.Depart'merit of'Fish' and Game (FSE"IR LETTER. F) are presented .on :FSEIR pages C&R., 67 through C&R-70: As indicatedabove, not changes were made to ,the text of.DSE,IR ;Chapter 6, in response., to these comments. CALTRANS Comments f g a Caltrans,mqurres as.to.the timmetable for implementation o each;miti .anon ineasure..proposed in 'Chapter .9 in relation, to the project d h development sceule: The RTC re erences, rlassi .i•. P , .f fcations at p. CR9 to CR14. Review of that section provides no ' nformation oir the timetable for . implementation in relation to the, project development schedule. Thus; 'the, SEIR. has, failed° ,to provide- the required good ,faith;, reasoned response or set. forth in detail ,the reasons why the comments and objections were.rejecied The discussion of "Traffic & Circulation Analysis Clarification" provided! ,on FSEIR pages . C&R=7 through C&R-14 -addressed', traffic:,conditions :and mitigation. measures in. terms, of `the short-term (next few years). and long-term (to 2015). A "timetable" for implementation of each. of .the. lraff c mitigati'on measures identified in the 'DSEIR "has not ,been.,developed .pending City decisions: on the alloc'ati:on , of resQurces t6j� ,accomplish these mitigation measures, although improvements, at the Future Village. Drive intersection with Petaluma Boulevard North (Mitigati:on Measure 7:3.1 and Mitigation,Measure 7,: ,.1) would need to be completed prior to opening V111age Drive to tra ff c. BAAQMD Comments BAAQMD recommends "substantially .more;" to mitigate 'the air quality impacts :acid o reduce' vehicle, trips — beyond the SEIR.'s "'generic list disconnected from the spec f c project or location;," as ihe.: vehicle emissions, for this project' are more than double the Districts thresholds. Specif cally; BAAQAID reconnnentls c"'onsider-ation of -reduced parking space and: employee incentive`s to ride transit. The. RTC- rejects the idea :of preparing more.., air .quality • 28 mitigations, withoitt providing ,detailed reasons why the BAAQIYID comments and objections were rejected. Wlii'le, the " City"Council will ''himately,decide, the role of the EIR is to provide effective, feasible ,mitigations for,,the Council 'to consider'`— particularly where, as here, the SEIR 's mitigation measures fail ,toreduce, air quality impacts to less than significant. Thus the RTC further fails as it does ,nol',sef forth. iyliy the development of -Me, project, is considered of overriding importance. See RESPONSE ',00-4'and; RESPONSE' 00-5 on FSEIR page' ,C&R-28"5. ,Given the magnitude of the,Pro*ect's anticipated impact'on vegional air quality based on the modeling conducted for the DSUR, •implerrientafion of 'the, addi'tional' mitigation measures, suggested by BAAQMD would not be expected to'reduce Project -related impacts on regional air quality to a level of less than significant_... David Keller Comments The RTC does not respond to Keller's comments, regarding impacts to employment and housing. The RTC does not respond' to Keller's comments regarding inconsistency with each General Plan "Central Goal,", with General ,Plan Chapter 8, or with General Plan Chapter 3. Instead, the RTC reiterates the Draft SEIR position regarding General Plan "land use designation, " thereby failing to describe -,the disposition of the significant issues raised by Keller regarding GP Central Goals, Chapters, 8' and 3, and failing to _provide thereasons why thecomments were rejected. The RTC responds to Keller's comments regarding, project inconsistency with the River Access and Enhancement Specife' Plan by *stating that the 'project is "generally consistent. " ® Without explaining the degree and scope of the consistency/inconsistency, the RTC has employed impermissible conclusory statements ;unsupported by data .or explanatory information. While true that the City Council wilt determine General Plan consistency, the EIR's role is to promote informed decision making' byaddressing consistency. The_EIR has a further role of responding to comments by the public; Here,, "because the, SEIR does not, comply with CEQA's procedural mandates, certification would 'be:'an abuse: of discretion. See LETTER JJ and associated RESPONSES on FSEIR pages. C&R-197 through C&R-270. The RTC does not respond 'to Keller's comments regarding,' the project direct and indirect, immediate and long term adverse impacts to the. center of Petaluma from the. demise: of local downtown businesses as ;a. result of the proposed project, including adverse impacts to Central Petaluma traff c and circulatitzn, urban blight, abandonment ,and decay of the central city and other existing commercial areas, employment, low income housing needs for low-income mall employees, emergency and policy services. These are not .merely "economic" problems, but clearly have. environmental, physical impacts' which may be significant. The RTC again, employs conclusory statements,unsupported `by data or explanatory information and thus, avoids the good faith, reasoned analysis required by CEQA See LETTER.JJ and: associated RESPONSES on FSEIRpage's C&R-197 through C&R-270. The RTC does not respond to Keller's. comments regarding a duty to use the most, recent and ® comprehensive information availuble, thus avoiding a description of the disposition of this 29 significant ,issue. The RTC won't t6uch,Keller's coMhzent that. there is pieceii.rea-ling of a larger roadway project which would connect ,to aRainier,road,alignment project-. The RTC does hot respond to, Keller"s comments that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers told Petaluma all, -additional building �upstream -Wdl I M co romise the flo'od:c6ntrol project, Tbe• RTC does not PI respond, to Keller"s,comnlents. that the; Sii�Ik does not assess the, cumulativ"e, loss of wetlands for the per Petaluma; River 'basin, where this.p_project cl is located.' The RTC does not respond to Keller's comments that 'there needs to be suneys for shrimp as the surveys conducted were too, late. in the season, See LETTER JJ and associated RESPONSES on,FSEIR pages C&R-197through ,C&R,_'270. . The RTC does not -respond: to Keller's comments regarding. the. qlterhative of,purchasing the Corona- Reach of the Petalit , ma R,4,erps a park,;' Me need for analysis of `additional species, -b thio`; River corridor. i W inconsistency with 'the 'Oak Preservation Zone, or cuMulative loss i Response JJ-21,solely references Response, IF-8 which deals with none of 'these" jSSjjes,I but only with concerns by the RWQCB regarding the river,'walk trail. See, LETTER JJ and associated RESPONSES on;, FSE-IR pages C&R74,97 through, C&R,-270. See also DSEIR pages 2-24 and 2_25 for discussion. 'of Project consistency. with "Oak. Grove/Riparian -Woodland" and, Preservation. Zones identified in the, Petaluma'Ri'Yer Access-and Enhancement Plan. • 30