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
Pei-e I of 3 Crump Katie . ... ...... ..... Eiieen.Morris [eil . eeh'mo rris 1 @ ink.net] Ftorn* e�afh N' Sent: Sunday, October 26 2,0q31:46 PM To: citymg Mayor, Keith_ CaneVarbgci.petaluma.ca:.Us m,,.ik or q4pet@401 re net; Bryant'@ bi� n ih a com •petaluma'mik ptorhaft0adl..com Subject:ArChelsea EiR To: the Petaluma ,City Council Re: Chelsea project EIR From': the' Sonoma COUnty Living Wage C oalition o8lition Contact: Efleeri Morris 7161 The Living Wage Coalition believes that approval :of the Chelsea project. will. result in at least one signifin rit "environmental im act that has not been noted in the EI,Rr=hsing housing - Ow rU 6 believe':�that one aspectoffhe,overcrow rthermor'q, w project's objec tives, "To ' promote the.public necess:Jty;l convenience -'and *general : welfqr -- ' - & ' ' , is no " t adequately , advanced by the proposed p roject or - addressed in ' the ex ploratibn of'pFQJPC t alternatives:. Cost to city ' services eramust iri�eVitably grbWrW,'jhpnlo grows 'a cost ,that d6tracts from the' genl welfare and :will riot necessarily be offset by 1_ ncre'ased'tax 'revenues. ®, Housing, Overcrowding' Housing overcrowding taused"by a development is considered a significant environmental impact. We believe that, the treatment of this issue in all.1tera of the. Chelsea EIR has been cursory and insLiffici0at. The preparers stzifie: in "PetalUma G& R," "The Draft Subsequent . EIR does not speculate on fbtu wages, that may be offered by unide tenants at the Project, and does not any clis6utsion of socib�konomic effects associated with low-wageemployrnent- as;this i 'beyond thoscope ,of Environmental' lmp act Report" (Page 329).- We differ with the= re on issue,, and believe f1liat CE' A demands a consideration of the housing overcrowding effects oQhis,prqjd According to land use consultant Jones,.and Stokes''periodic'al C'LLQ A updaties:based on recent court dedisiohs(availaj le at wwwjone,s.a _ n'd,s'fok "Wh&e, a �physic�61 change ,.is caused by economic, Or sacial, of the prqj'ed the :,�physical change m - ay be regarded as a significant Pff6cCin'the same manner as oth e r " p ' 9 ipa ��c, resulting from the project. Alternatively, economic and social effects of a''p g ! p , may be used to determine that, thaphysical change is a significant effect environment. If the 9 e ! physical change - causes a�Ldverse economic or social effects tnp We, thbs e adverse effects may be usedasafactor'in determining phYsica] bhange- is significant. For example, if - the * project wou cause over crowding of'A c publi' facility and the overcrowding causes an adverse effect on people, the overcrowding would be considered as a significant effect."' 10/27/2003 ^ 8 a Page 2 of`3 A lead a g enc shall make its decisions based on substantial evidence the Jones and. g Y • Stokes update continues::. Substantial evidence shall include facts reasonable assumptions predicated on facts, and: expert opinion supported byfacts. " The. Living Wage Coalition has presented 'the City:of " Petaluma with `substanti'al .evidence: that the Chelsea projecttwill result in' housing ove'rcrowd'ing. Indeed,,part of our.su.bstantia 1 evidence: comes fm a re p ort_commissioned by the city of Petaluma, i p n artnership with other I`ocal gov.e_rnments —the Jobs- Housing Linkage :Fee study. That report:fi °nds that- low wage employment contributes to our housi "ng shortage: In addition, we_'have provided the city, with; two reports,'which we- attach again to these comments— 'A,,Living UVage for Sonoma - County; "and "Affordab'le'Hous'ing for Everyone. Solutions to Sonoma County's Housing, Crisis." In "A Living Wage,for Sonoma County, "'drafted by Samantha Teplitzky, a, researe,her from UC Be'rkete,y, there is ample evidence lb make an assumpti'on ",pr.edicated on facts;" that the s fobs created by Che,lsea''s new development will .not pay a. wage- s °fficient to allow workers, to, find decent un- crowded housing,. Workers of ,the existing. Chelsea :development and,at a.. similar, cleuelopment in Santa Rosa, were surveyed, and it was found that;fh'e'avera °g;e worker was an adult ":breadwinner —not a teen, or'secondary.wage earner,as predicted in the ElR before you. The median wage was $9..57 °per hour (pages 28 to .30 °of the report),. Thiswage which common sense and "'reasonablle ass'urnptions predicated .o "n facts" urge . us to believe will prevail: in the new part project„ is, woefully inadequateto allow a worker to afford decent housrng It is.a reasonable assumption — indeed, a fo - regone conclusion —that worke` °rs will crowd into units, because they will earn wages comparable ";to • workers "in similar positions. The costs of rental,.housi'ng a nd housing ownership are: exorbitantly high in 'Sonoma County. Among; UCB researcher_Nari Rhee" s findings'in "Affordable Housing for :Everyone," is the, distressing fact that low- wage,jo:bs rn the .service and retail industries account for 44 percent of all new jobs created in Sonoma County between 1995 and and that' 57. percent ofall S:onornaCountv�worke_rs earned,less`than $12 ;50 per hour. She' lists' a'total of 752;2801o:w wage job`s, represer%ting 46 percent of lei ll local employment opportunities. ',None of the lobs Listed provide wages that are high enough to afford th,e.2002_median one bedroom apartment rent of $8231 " `(`page 15, "Affordable:;Housing for Everyone `J,. ti g p p Again,' the :facts this report kead;�us to the reasonable assum ti on that ,.Chefsea' project °w;ill result in further housing overcrowding,. According to ,a 2002 report from'P.epperdine University's Da venport "The , consequences `of overcrowding irnpac't two primary areas: (1;) the quality of life for Galifornia's families especially for ch'ildreri^'- is adversely degraded, .and (2),. the ,det`erioration :of critica_I infrastructure'in 'the state accelerates much faster since significantly conditions. 'This constrains a comoods not designed to accommodate higher density hbor more people e� move into Pei 9 munity's capacity to provide the .necessary level of public services such as waver, sewer roads; parks fire, police, etc:" Promoting public 'ne.cessity„ 'con.venience and general welfare 1012 71 663 Page 3 of 3 We believe the city has a right under its p6licep to deny,development that will result in significant ',costs to the pub,lic,,sect' 11 VVe direct, auto the two;aftached fact sheets on Y community impact reports fora loo at; how a City can determine how much low wage employment impacts the public sector. Finafly if you as a Council: do decide to approve the project; despite its significant environmental impacts, "we,request that you weigh the .cons.idera:tions mig ht believe to be "overriding"'—increased sales t8x and convenient shopping for Petaluma residents—with the actual costs of low wage employment to city, county, state and federal government. We believe t ,ubder 51 of Resolution 91-136, you can safely charge this cost to the developer, Hand Delivered "Housing for . All: Solutions to Sonoma County's ,Housing , C.ri*si's.," l by,Nari RheP, doctoral candidate rt, Depament of Geography Graduate Student `Researc'he'r; Center for Labor Research and Education, University of California , I at Berkeley; pp in 2003 .by New Economy Working Solution's and Service Employees I ntern6t.ir6ha 1UP ion Local 707. "A Living Wage for��Sopo m'a Colu'nty " by Samantha. Tep, 1 A LIC 6erkiE�16 p.tz, M 2002 by the §ononia' County Living Wage Coalition. Attachments ..A Model Community Imp act Jessica Goodheart, ;co.4directbr of research fot the Los Coalition for New1c.onomy* published by the Los Ahgeles,,Coalition for a New Economy. "Community Impact Report Pact Sheet, published by the ',Sbluth Bay AFL-GIO Labor Council. 10/27/2'003 Son o»ta Coatrz;ty ai , the Living Wage: A Stu , 4y of thej of. a!Livin'g Wdge Ordinance on the C it! e sl of Santa" Rosa and Rdaluma A Report on the Benefits and Impacts of a Living Wage Ordinance on the Cities of Santa Rosa an'd Petaluma - • a August 2,002 Samantha Teplitzky, M, .A. UC Berkeley Center for Labor'Resea'rch and Education Page 1 In the..,midst VA drAnIatic econoarnic decline, coin 11111nities acrds.s California,aire cl restibning hovv tangible community needs can be better met by the b,'l1rtYis of public dollars invested I n sports cuinplexes, retail malls, indi st6al, parks and trafispcirtatiGn ii istrirctiir. : ,r rrc" too], the, (;oinrrir,triirt Impart. l:ejior t,, has' been . developed to ernhc�wer cummiani.ti to 6nsuVe that new development meets tl`,r.ir "nee.els: Such a tool is essential foie poli'cyinakers, corriiiuri;ty residents and developers iiitcres"ted iii ia process that secures community in,ptit and evaluates the effect.of; developinerit projects duhr the rniti.xl phases ell. "a project. "I'hi:s lociiment_p'resen:tsaid o (v.ervieW of the Corr_niunity, liTipact Re p o rt ((CIR), As the name: suggests, - thepurpose crf the CIR is to eiiabl`e San Jose residents to evaluate the effects of'publicly'fUnded de%'elopment on the cornmnunit.v: Such an evaluation would contain ecohornic and social data of concern to those�di.rectly affectcd.'by a `h bject -, the broader c0 mrnUrif " as well.,a's° to the dcvelol: ers And 1' e.aders.'Ii'w m addition to the standard enviro men'ta1. review. A CIR pulrcy �y �ld make ;sotli are ort a conmponerit.ofall devel'gpnierit projects receiviimg` public fends in,San.jose. The C'i'ty of San, Jose;, through the Redevelopment: Agency, has invested roughly $ 1.7 billion In downtown revitalization anal ether redeveloprnei T proi.ectareas. The impacts of this investmen',t.have been mrxed..Th1e need . for the Cf , can be illustrated by a review of severalprojects, or which the availa- bility of such a re.por.t 1Maild have been helpful -lesseriing or eliminating a negative impact on, the community. One example is the subsidized United Artists Theat er complex off,of'. Third S.Ureet in downtown San Jose. Research completed prior to the project 111us "tr ted the high demand for i i-frtly entertainmerit in the area and projected sil;ni4icant profits from the development. ljowever severe fiiiancial losses . f;tiI1,owi'ng the; ope'ni"rig of the �-orapl`ex led [lie theatre to close its doors less than six years after the cleye.lopment agreement was approved leaving the city with roughly $5 million in losses. Looking obackNvards in time, it is appiu the pl anning process failed to accurately, evaluate the San Jose retail market, and dem'ugraphics of'th,e sttrrou_idirig area.. It (lid nt recognize th e difficulty UA would experience In sectrring nicist'poten.tially po;ptilar films fi 'cirstri:butors. It f ii +led to secure: public input on the projecf i'n'eludiri9 residents ;likelihood of attendin7 a new clovvirtu.wn theatre,, This failure to gather,pn,d. inccirporate comprehensive public input umjerr..ed the k9iiecrs chance of success. Another rueful exanmple of where a CIR niiglmt • ;. have helped ideniifi sigtiific.ant impacts to the . .. ...... ..:. .. THE SOUTH BAY AFL -CIO LABOR COUNCIL T11;e pu -rpOse Of the C:IR 1S„ to enable 'San ' ,j.ose re'si dents to evaluate the effects (A pau )hdy funded de.vel�plinent an , the C ().171171 an 1 ty. COMMUNITY IMPACT REPORT .................... ........................ ..................... ......................................... .......................... city can I)e.seen in t4e... Ar,0 this Case, the RDA failed to hserve or rn&.a sure die'adverse Pu e f f ec ts e job.qua h.ty oor b1ic fy e-t o f;j�.he jai .services bi4c)ro granting the Million subsidy; A s s n ;fes.u a dev"ekVnerit.crea cl'a generate,d a:)I?rox niately 520.jobs and il!dcmalld oushig,1111T.T.S. H6w(w&T, for c I lue to; the k. of wir ? t . , provisioll in the devel agre .e.j il eat rcittglih all Arena wtirkc,rs earn less 'haf t l'a fivin wa and c _e.dhea i ith,'hisuranve. As, _Wt, new ell ployment created 'ail in res I . l t_ , _.. , need fcaafforclable housing, a gj oil publicly funded health services f'(.)r -the ahinsured, mid additli 0 j i al.cfern and"for niv rot is� other forms of public assistanceJo IONV Wage Worl ljig� farrid les. 11 � g c QM P'O N ENT S The GIR cl,c'sclfl)Jcs c0lld - I;I.l e - , X 1 - 1 g corrinutilwy I .Ii;fd esfiftiates the effects of it, that c rl,l ni 11117v. -)teild I, C.- cts OF-a: �1 c � Illent ill cover& p( i a c vclop s i x areas:, e limising, public sector finance, smart and end` ffonawnta quality:. It pel fs�,Wi:th a n lap , of the- pro" .ject area. as weh a s , pi C ty that . Then, based oil informat -fir6vided, b 1) the devel,bper and the city, it descril:)es effects that,a project. . in'ay have. For exa.mpto.,.a CIR unay'hclp the foflow-ing kinds of qbelstions: o 1:5 th'el lflwl'v� tcj be economically viabH ei 1 what extent (, o�cs a pro e o 11 1 T , )ect contri efhc local tax bilscl% Does'tlle p•o* ct add'to the tax base c m o . )i Nye parts th,e tax'base site, to,aftc XYliat public c .StS — Rich as !the costs of subsidies ,O't'iiifr,'astructul '"rill 'be r I equi`red fo.r the completion of th ,pro I o Diws the dd jobs :tc) the C0111MUnity.? what kind ofJobs,in- terms of wages and Pens the proje 4P.Cfe "Ise the ncjejd additional 1101_1�mg ill fhle, region? Is the n ee d o afi` rdabte'h - Ig? ,ed I* r market rate m 0, ousil Does fli.e �rn . eel egio,ri-' r, the r 'S j for ri e e ct.s 9. • boes the project pro%idt- cbm nl�unvty ai I n c. . rilties - . :Such asj-)al-1�-, 'clifilde'are,centers! B E K EF I TS Use of the CIP has potential, advu ta:qes f clecision-makers', community leaders 'By �ag ct .111d.residents. - a g g regating ; needed! ede iJjforil rtfon in "one d0cun it avolds neeclle'ss, dtdays ass�b wiTh late ,requests: for addft, - i'mial data, By're . clua a.colffpr-ehe,ri.9iv.e jectj. assdre - nmuni't overview of the I)FOJ t s the, coi y fl makers will Ilaye fil w1felit) ley exe-rcise'the rju d ginent.'By providing a sold. tease of,facts;;'l t f0cli5 clebate on, c lf,will=lvin solutions solutions i�.ari . issues f6r w1 jic be formulated; ............ ................ ........... .......... ............................ 4 _ ............ THE SOUTH BAY AFL–C COUNCIL ......................... Windsor, Anne .qw,om Sent: To: Subject: .,Jensen,, Deanna, Friday, May 07, 2004 11':42 AM Windsor, Anne; White George' FW: Balls Not Malls! - - - -- Original Message - - - -- From: Bluesp.in [ mailto :bluespin @ea�rt<hlink.net] Sent: Fr >iday, May 07, 2004 11:03 AM To: CDD Subject: Balls Not Malls! Dear esteemed Planning. Commission members, The recent Argusl Courie 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 Tipper river ecology rather than expand the design failures .inherent in'the'Outlet Mall complex makes perfect sense from a variety of angles. Big, "Box expansion will add additional traffic to our streets. This. is bad enough, but here'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 diminish much unnecessary east -west traffic. A big box expansion and the accompanying freeway overpass construction 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 downstream fdood-ing and provide a needed Northwest Petaluma Park area. You know you have hit on a good design when it solves multiple problems at once. Keller sneaks for many concerned c who ,agree with ballf,'elds and a park in the Corona Reach. Even Chelsea benefits: 'sports I parents wbu'ldr'und'oubtedly 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 theKen'ilworth 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 traffic, , in cre,as'e community enjoyment and ,keep cut river, beauti -ful by constructing needed -parks" 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 http: / /Www.scotthessphoto.com I * 7�AP, 2, 2004 R. - 4r k • L Cl ell KL MAL- 1� • • Apr. 19,2004 Petaluma Cite Council City ofPetaluffia Petaiuma,Ca.94952 DearPetaluma Councit Members: Olt APR 2 0 2004 MAYOR I f press our SU ppp o rt for approval o 1 and my,faripffly want to ex t - onkard to generat the P , eltaluma Mark,.tplaPe' to, go'f e, kdos an pro erty tax revenue to bur8erlice -,i-qd,s level to make road and infrastructure imiprovemx entsand will provide recreational opportunitie, s 'for you th,"Which i Petaluma Village Marketplace I provide em loylpont opport- i p p unities which k bid ly needed To"r head of household and secondary jobs as well. We -residents w0i'llhave additional she p.0 choices to avoid driving to - Are o <1 as, t shop Many of my friends lik shop in the Petaluma Markeipikez be, cause of the open atniwsphere� and the easy access park ing and so many choices to shop. They have all the best brand Keeping more sales tax 111T'Fetalu.ma wilt increase fu ' nds needed to o :e enjoy eta] ' um a! assist each of us t oy finet living in P In closing I and my fam ily and friendS urge You - City Mayor and Council members to supportAhe Petaluma Village Marketplace Project and - fill the needy of the - people of Petaltunial I I Since-Vy .LMrs ,.,-Ru ,V ,th:'e.ldftia'n',dnd fa Paiiuria:, CA 94951 • � 7. r 5 �004 APR Apr 13 04 12:48p a d, ma. n i s':t •ra tp,r (7 762- 9524 • P :'l Petalti City Council Fax 707 778 -4498 River Oaks /Petaluma Village "Marketplace .'r oth,notiable to�dttenclthe Coidncil Meeting, to express my opinion but as a homeowner- in an area offitcfed..b.:this.de.Vildpmenf,, not in fdVor any d J lopmentJntheflood W eve pla While the development plans in-dicate:possibl - it f looding would_ be mitigated vith, careful p6nning, T am not trustful of-that concludion. Admittedly, it could'.be on em-otional reaction p - ior events with f looding, ii bof hers� me"to th(wthis, project could uhAoh6 , hot , been accomplis'hedby the flood' control .project, Tbjs� area, the Pa Y romareo ,'hoalf6da - very longtime to f eel. secure. in heavy rains. , Once something' is broken, 'it, takes. many years,, monylagencles,, much more money , than anyone `has toput it right. 'T.don I t think we, the dibiens of .Petaluma ,can afford to challenge Mother Nature and l"sim the iffettiVeftesm of the f lood contra[ project: Tha t beip9so!, - d I also havelbilowed the study about the sales tax: leakage' mith. considerable interest We new.car, furniture, ap plionc in PeTdjumd; however f or clot t things out o ` e shoplf area, Ift w shoes, and many 6 either Santa Rosa, Rohnerf Park or hPus ho I is -fully supporti,ve additional shopping and choices-Ifor shopping, just NOT in the , flood; plain. Phyllis Huffman Shorrow 823 Madigan 5treet,. Petaluma 707 7�63_8342 •' 4 r � El February ?5, 2;004 Dear Mayor Glass and Council Members, The Board of 'Diieetors oftlie Petaluma Area Chamber of'Commerce supports the app fi ca'tion of the. Petaluma Village Factory Outlets, to =expand its operation adjacent; to its current t site on North: `The PACCBoard encourages. the City oUetalumx to advance this project without delay. The Board also urge ,the�use of the City's retail leakage-study in conjunction with the develo;prnenf of this property, recognizing that'the study is a dyiiamic, evolving,docuinent. The support of`this „proposal. is in accordance with the B'oard's policy regarding long, range econoiiiic planning for the City of� talurna and the curbing bf retail leakage from our community. T'oui's truly; p r Onita Pellegri,n. Chief Executive Officer A - �� � �' 111 �• MAR 0 ' 2004 r1 i Yy ; - Honoi-able 1 Members of the City Council r. MAR Q 4 ljc City of Petaluma - 11 i✓nai'ish Street. Petaluma CA 94952 fhlqL;i; NOV 2 4 2003 '— // • ' : � ;; .- �~ (, 1. ; • % G� /t. 4E ��,_L< � ri . F i '��, / s • , u y � E C E I A, Petaluma City Council 1 t & gli.sh .St.- (MAYOR j Petaluma,, CA 94.952 Dear Council Members: Novemlier `1, 2003, Iviy family and -1, ,as•residents Petaluma,.wculd like to request you not to.let the characters of this township change -keep it. historic.,,, Two important point&worth, emphasizing include_: ® Please reject permits to expand the ,outlet. mall or any future mall /. strip mall styled development. — Big $qx stores and outlet mall expansion equal ;the demise of`our historic° downtown jewel, a dramatic increase in traffic congestion, and increase the probability. of flooding • Please keep the of Petaluma intact - b' reviewing not only the . p P Glues and environmental. "im acts'but� also whether the ro owl's se "rve.Petaluma s v p ., goals: We would .appreciate. it if you keep us informed on the :progress of These, points. Yours faithfully, ' r MD °Fereshteh Kujoory `At � � y, : . Home Address: 520 Hawk; Drive Petaluma, 'CA• 94954 „ n. v ce.J�6 'cuc pc(f"Lws pecvlt o2� c) n6 W`0 6fc� )vhca(!� orc c'Y y c re COS - e_ Grtivy) fy) c�� Ct'h IF sx CP I tc cff t lv� Pt ��l ,skjcL , I�l�� v:l� 7C& f S, RECEIVED NOV 2,1 2003 MAYOR ca L SDI flacl- L4 /I Petaluma.City Council November 17, 2003 11 English: St.•„ Petaluma, CA 94952 R;E,C.EIVE� NOV .1,9 .2001 MAY OR Dear City Council, I steadfastly'support maintaining our historic downtown in keeping with, its character, rejecting pennit& to expand the outlet mall or any future simi'iar style•development it cluding; str p•ma'll's. Large chain, stores and, mall 'expansion'threaten the social and economic w.iabili`ty of our downtown area,, I support the council reviewing;the environmental impacts ofany future• development and. whether the proposals serve- • Petaluma',, goals and values. Si'ncerel.y, Richard A. Moeller - 5 Fair, St. Petaluma, ;CA 94952 . NOV 2 01003 MAYOR ju -h! - 74k r l � I t fr H� � � / � I ll _Li�`.� 0- FU Itku how t • lu— Moolv"— LJ Judith E. William RECE9VED 2 Kazen Way NOV 1 Petaluma CA 94952 9 2 Oa fvaAYOR . November 17, 2003 Petaluma City Council ir1. English St Petaluma, CA 94952 I, am very concerned about "the prospect of an'e�cpansion to the outlet :mall in Petaluma. I request�that you reject permits,to expand this;:mall or any future mall /strip mall styled development;; xpansion equal the demise of out historic downtoB n jewels a dramatics increase el in4raff'c congestion, and increase the `probabil'ity of flooding It; is vitally- important to keep the character of Petaluma intact, by'reviewing not only the environmental impacts. but also whether the "proposals serve Petaluma's values, and,goal's. I. would appreciate it if you would keep me informed of'any action the City Council takes on these issues. Sincerely, Judy 'll'i`ams 0 0 i , i I I � l'., li, .. C 'E IVED' NOV '19 2003 C - �t ,MAYOR 00 a-co. 6o V� Us e-A w-,l �� ` W '`U r '-; ,� y���v�, E %fCo I V DE C �'D 03 IF V.kalr - iC 0 2 0 EC 10 2 MAYOR iri h,ct A/ ryeL -h 5 /��fs fv e�dL fi-� aA.-7 y. fr lyiu�l 77 Ma11 Gxp�,s�m -, �- .8����`S�vr�s I/ Sf�7, n / / fl l���e�� -e. , �{�� ems: � sy1�� �- C� -� ��,,� o-f � p1za 5 - flq. 5 '55L4-r� �►� �� yeti FY k pails Alta. ft.,& Mrs. Mark Abdilla 831 Western Ayr. Petaluma; CA 94952 -2547' To whom it may concern At the �Petaluma. Council,; D.E . 0 5 20 As a new resident of the city ofPetaluma I've been ;impresse wi the care that the city council has g ven to the old historic 'buildings in town. -I feel it wo.uld:be a detriment "to°the city if we continu_ed'. to .expand. on the already perfect' little town atmosphere. We - really don't need anymore strip malls: Let.'the little guy have. a, chanee at` making 'a life for imself with the srnal:l businesses we already` have in town. They are your little; jewel's of our historic downtown. , And to make maters `wo the already - thick traffic through town. would get ,ten times worse. -Not to _forget the environmental impacts on the o 11Y ; thei possibili`ty.of more flooding ,and °the ,impact it could have. on the Petd1uma..River. Lees keep -our 1 values and goals in perspecti-ve. -, It would be a sad day if Petaluma .didn't have, the smalltown charm anymore., Keep the people of Petaluma informed on the progress of these .iss.ue.s. Signed a concerned,.citizen, ID 0 • nF,r' Dae U"� • ;L r L 7Lv ay CL d , �.��- 1� �� ,h�,� dux �� 5� -;-;e� �,�- �<<1 �.���:�'�, (Lu�j 04 LWh--h)Ll-)4l kL57pa55e5l �lyw �� �[a -t's h �o C � � ,�Sf s �c� �' ,. �t'�2�1 i'r�7�1�.cr� k,-5 I,c> {'LI�SE'- 1'v! -S �'C?i� /� d (i�� (G1iZf'L/�'1_/ a O we sou .4e- a�L d 05-5 Ck' wk I 0- L e :bow U, I k'' Ljr- 5 E:2j CD o. i f I IS C CY) II u Ka 1 �3 jf �, PI ���,�-� �f'�.c�(, - iz- i. J1,,� �.. ��_: ��_� c, i � 1��� l �4 -- 1 u.:�-� E �?( • 'r �,c'�.� !{� ' I • Lj��.�_ I��:LC..� I,� �C�� ► z� rr;t' C _ i.� r ��C. ��s v cuf I 3 1 Yli Wo 17CU �.�:: Imo, �� �� • � -+� � • � ��.5 j 1� ��;;; �_ f,,� � � �� ��-r'� �- v S I f�� � s ► � G F���l �.�t _ C`C 0", TRACY LADD 1.653 MADEIRA CIRCLE PETALUMA, CA 94954 RECEIVED DEC 0 3 2003 fviAYC R " December 1, 2003 Petaluma City Council I 1 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 "Pose 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 butalso whether the proposals serve Petaluma's values and goals. Please keep me informed regarding the progress on this issue. Thank you, f Tracy La d 8' 2003' November .2.0, - 2003 1. Petalum City Council; - 11 En glis�h Street Petaluma, CA 94 Dear Petaluma City Counc.�i;l Members, Please keep our - city ch;armrngI We „d:o not, want any "Big - Box 'stores or strip m=all developments to be built n Petal;uma. The tax income , brou,ght in by th,eseI large retailers does nofi outweigh, the detriment to the city (io flood g t to mention making increased traffic, in � , no Petaluma tacky "!') we do not n eired to compete with Rohnert Park. Petaluma residents are attracted by the character anal. ambience of our fanta'sti'c city. please don't ruin this,. Please keep us informed about developrne, in Petaluma. w LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN GAFFNEY 370 Gtznd Ave #5 (Si 0) 891 -9592 Pliane Oiklu►d,'GA 9t0 (5.10)'891- 9380'FAX FAX MEMO TO. Petalt(ma City .Cotntcil 7 0 7 - 778 - 4419 pew ums.Crty C jerk' 707- 775 -4420 - 0 5 Z004 une,Plannw�g De " pertinent. 707 -778 -4498 Pctalt 5 2004 . �,rt�MMU � �l uaI�ANIMtN� DATE: February . RE: Petzloaga dfingc M Project maid Subsequent EBR PAGES TO FOLLOW: 20 CON FpENPIALIi•X I� QnCE 1 ' This dozlraient contaws ua Tt►c informogon is Evtaraatioc bdoc�ng to;the,sender which ss lega119 Pnve iltu ndod only for the use of thc;indi.tdiW oa cnnty named above. if T°U are not tbr'untended' :or yon.am hereby notified that any disclosuse Sopyui9,,: M the tion, oc : taDtia�g of any action in reliance on the contrats of then tekcopicd information , is etaictly peohtbite& if you have recetved' "rhea oeansmission in error,' p1u�e imnrnedi�y notify me by telep6onc. to ar " fiirteeturn of: the original docnmeitr "tome r Fcbnaary 5, 2M Comrrunt'Re: Petal' Village'MxkvVLwe Projod'and Subsequent EIR Vzfutv ZOLIQ I I : tol I I • 0 The SEIRYSM 14 rej, Include Jed de scr i pti on �t§sential clement of an 'Un CEQA, accurate, stabit and 1iisite project & ' t, A., S - u ded -pr6 Description and Chapter )�:oflheSEKL: , nfGrrrUWve;Wd legally twl structures pye� 1 ,400, square feet) Setting," defines nes t . be project as F, a . rc , ,el . W(gonti,stifig,of 5 re 13 tit. a 41,000.s4u=166t 12 a369000squwc and Parcel C (consis foot retail structure; had a d6tentidn, I basii'iObe noth-east.comer. of ParCCI.C. PirC41B will in clude 923 parking spaces. Parcel vnil'include 527 pwking spaces. See pg4i ES-1, 1-12 and table 1-2. al of the SEIR unchanged However, after thle,Planhih ,crv, %�Conut�iss,ibn recommended' ted' b� al: rr�odiftbaiqns to , 3116 pr oj e ct , , were recommended by the IWI" resea OU t0 i from howbng Y PM rnbdifications to the Planning Comrnissio�nat its PCD h6idng Those-changes include footprint of bull . dihgs,Jhr_, , MakXM I I id , i jind. siii6 of rOAdWRY WiglIneut acks,.'Ora�ax& patterns ,,;the location of proposed ffic,parkirig lot I Ut", C n"Crta AYO , 11, I . i Irte wetland Initigation sites froxitagest.0:_ way adid tre replacement. After the P ' (fb jiCAri t Par c. C may Qr ngs the-,' - anged'such thdt c Planning CommissiOn's' projec sPec three or4our Shudftlfes - rather than the may not inc l u d e ,a ilb6altr. P OnIY1WO, five considered in'the SEM -dependent upowthe needs of I ,project applicant and/or certain urudenti fied prospective tenants:, h have -been put into ihe,fP OfA resolution nor otherwise None - of these prloject:c anges, �"taff does not expect, to release t1k current project scfiption reduced to writing. .16 addition, ItY s to the public any sooner t February, A 2003. Curr ently, b-, c, oc s not know what this proposed project well , Cl e pro' bei - :c�dhsidered. today and thus arly , the 'd' -bed R idt"th MV e vror-V., escn M the SU is h in nature of this project "I the SEIR project desc „ �is� ncidiericomplete nor stable TlItfluctuat. [j have, c=espon4ih&6ffccU.'On thr-SE] R .�san -,ysisof impacts, inc d th c impacts . of ter quality: and, viesion/sedirrientation), tra f& , a tte m s hydrbI6gy, wa the project on P parting, biology and n6isO..'Without an adequate ranalysis 'of impacts, -tbe;t',City and public 'am deprived of discussion'_'Off feasible mitigations.. act, ;its setts or a"tional dita'chan es,,theSEWJwa *ay that, If the changes in pro); bl” 0 f a n=Mg stantiSS adverse I op''Portmty to comment 1*R WN deprivP�41k L Vu. , ic: � di , obal public comment, even if the ' i j'- lib,611�SEIR,:must'be�!r.ecirculated for ad it environr0ehW`cffects, 'bccn rrid City d6ti 3 papts 1�vc: February 5, 2004 COMBWn,'Re:''j'cL&Iurw Village Marketplace Project and Subsequent EUR 2 02/05/'004 11 :01 51-1,08919 33 PaGE 03 ti fail stofullydcscribc.� 1wn;PMs3Lng5 TheSEIR-pro , 0. ai�y of pr9jcct's strc , , tha a ticambe o A e . C - Ons. 'T,,I public t. S dAherati i� �gve met ii PUI will he & scn of * scope end 'pu ;sought�.S&OA756. '.I Witb uc fi� a d riptio;v of the -- bedAgrci7ncnts.' design of sbvgmbed,4kerations for such Spr d es i gn an d ld of the stream I bed"`idtcriitions. eo=cil;iod�th;. pubic are unable to assess the" c essarymi gatiori s)'tor ipaean : iiatt nstrearnhabitatsanclaq hibi i irripd.cis(and.ne the:proposed project. .28- y, nei cr '5" �EIR n thi scd SEIR irwludc'dw changes in thv 8 FinA die I s, propo ac O)Oet description. S tefcrenee At p.- J -4. - abandoned railmad right of way in their p - 41 incluckd in theA-9 J proieCl however; Development ofthc abandoned,railh ad xi 9, "Y vms conditions of 9",VIdIDf;jW,s,,p;bj . eeL, - Th&ef6rc, in order axw cvrrtply with QEQA"* s nian&,W ihAt it the zibandoned -d t the sc6pdon be,coni complete, -right ofwamustb environdienAW Onpaqs will likely never boaxWyzed.' IL Tfie Stilt FAM 46, Adtquat'el' ,Otochb-i-'tht tag 0 Y ns,ln 'tio the An EIR is required to include a description Of Owp**Al cnYM nincrital con& vic of Ow. . pro which c cilntjttitc thc; baseline ;l phy sical o6rtditionsb.ywhichal"cadaig;lxk ow, ge determines whether an i M is significant. CEQA Gwd6libe-fl,512 Kn led ofibe, regioxiO setting e �assessrnentrbf ebviro empto&MU ' g� is critical IQ si M be, on cnvitonii Would he affected by-tbr P CcL tat resources thit are tvire.or unique othelegiovand IIcTXIR must demonstrate that thvsigpifi t environinkn4l'impacts of the prciposed; Mj ect, were Imus t,:Omittbe i si&fkaqt " of'thevtoiet1lo* adequately investigaw&andLdiscttmed &A it: effects considered in full cnvikdnrncntAl k Id. The in this regard aA'ifinclud6 no description of the,extetil'Of thc,PcWuijria,RJver fi6*a' in', ndra.floodplain nriap Sirnilzi4 no land uw map'isi ficludO in Ilk SEI,R. See pg$- 17 1. " "Because ,of . the proximity o the Pidje6t site, hy"90p, issues, ate, of Jothc PdWUMa RJ 'SEM" validity hints a portion o , f �tNe' pri'ma.r,yi.mpo-rwc�t�t,Othe.p�roj&t� See p� 5-1. The SEIR w :of the projecA wouldi be located ftWn, the flooq a jain, but",does, not descri 1 fIqodp(ain -either pre r- po o st,pr 0 "cct , oristruction- See p. I I.. Knciwlcdgc` of LJ16 extent: of the analysis o f v evaluate Mtn sion floodoliiin is important to �the Cri, i�oft ipipmets in order 10, eValua the the Zero Nest, Fill"Policy of buildings, into the (P. 1 -16 dompfiawx�vfth, City's regarding flood storage wlihiwthe lfloodolai6 (Id.) d6iisistency with GC Fe6tilwyS, 2 3 • VV 5/2©114: 1 I : 01 5i 6691 9' ?•Ed BFI' AN GAF V NLY F'"UL V4 Si regw-ding :,,flood management and hazards (p 2 -! 6 - 2 -17), consistency with the City's and FEMA's regule ions regarding floor elevations and floodplain encroachment (p. 5.9),'and FEMA insurance requirements. "Over the years; flooding in Petaluma has caasM eztctisive [multi- million dollar) damage. See S -S tY l� _ p � wu $40 rwllon to °al ' �x p&%-damages. t has, l evtate . . e s t:o The SEIR s eavu+ rimcntaf setting also does not include any description of the parcel on which Village Drive- is proposed to be eta River crossing and Petaluma g located between the P ^�,.� the Boulevard North. VVithotit,thi's mformaf ion rq E�Yt� ba ling physical COTIdiGOIl9OftllCproject, the EIR can not adequately irifortn the City and the public iof whether ' impacts will likely be_ significant. III. inadequate *aalys is of SiplfFtcant A.dverve TEnVi mdmektal upsets Land Use and Planning Policy Iht�'tAnahrsis flaws The SEIR has failed rto pvperly analyze compliance of the proposed project with all app licable land use , laps; polici ` r' i f ageaeies'% th,ytu diction over the project app i p ,, es; and atrons o adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigOin envitonMe eff g ntal' acts. First, Chapter. 2 : commences ;by promising that' its second section (Impacts and Mitigation • Measures ),will summtuite 'llic projoct's conformance with all applicable plans and polices and identifying mitigation,meastwei': Seep. 2 -1. However, the. "Impactand.'Mitightion "section on P. 2 -26 and 2 -27 fails to include the proper level of analysis. There isl no discussion of the facts and rationale regarding ,this projects eonsistettpy with land use plans. Moreover;'thcre is no conclusion of the sipificance or insignificance ;of this project! Noe is the +e' ' discussion of mitigations. The Council and the,public.are only informed that >ihe project;is "generally.consrsten0' This implies that in one or more undefined-ways the project is inconsist:er t Wi the 6talum'ti 'General Plan ( "GP "), the Petaluma River Access:and,Enhancemint Plan (PRAEP) 'and%r the;FCity's Zoning Ordinance. Given tbat a confict.with a land use plan, policy or regulation, according to the SEIR is significant, this is a f tal omission. The sitting section dcscribing,various policies furdkt',confounds the . reader. For example: GP Policy 7'(p. 24) The ptior.EJR determined that a n- u-nimum scibecA of 120 feet from did 'NoU y address 9 0 c Gsneialp lan ccn tW or spcctfic.:goals objyes 90 EIR for Parcel A limited its analysis to she "policies" to the;Ceneral'iPlan; and d i this sad pct: 4 ` SEIR , '"_' orprograms lhat;could apply propo prod promised. t evaluate these bi �aspeosllof ;the. General 'Plzn. See p. 2 -6. February 5, 2tk14 Comment Re: Fcujur A Village Markdplam Pmicd and Submquem EIR 4' - C 02/05/:!004 FA6 05 the b required for devc1opmcn.1 of Parcels B ADCI� Wier . e Policy 7. This y •. p an 1,00 foot setback, This SE IR concludes that the project inconsistent With Policy Tand that jhe,project`doe _Dovrise to:the, leve1ofA -poiential 17envi I ronmqptio impact. The ;SErR,offers.,ao analysis ordiscussionLaSJ9 h reached these conchisions. • 0, 16) -T prio dthai GP Flood Hazards P' P o l icy 7 (p. 2 EIR &termi;ne requiring the floor elevations tobe above year Jlood..plain would assure ;consistency .of,thc!project -with Policy 7. - However, we now know thal the flodf.elevations were Off sei, Comment ,,JJ-18 thi s at �CR209. The l consistenc detcrminition does not take, � int P rMalbon antO_KVQunt. Further, there is no deterrnihatiofi. of Significance. • Petaluma RivcrAcccss and E*weceznentllan`(p;. 2 -.I7, to 2-25) The SE determines that' on5i piie aicknowledging. th Vi . ve the project, is consistent des at age Drive Bridge would 'be constructed ,through a Preservation Zone where tbe.FRAEP. prohibits.deve of any S1 wad! Yet-. the • kind. Ac6Drdin -K inconsisle4cy with policy should be Jgnif gjq i*: SE SEIR avoids any statement regarding si0ficance and in 40ing, s6 fails to. discuss feasiblej cffective-mitigation measures: uatel W S* ific* irnpacts bffailbland . i Ign ,y analyze, epotcnt Second ihe'SUR does not kdeqth I.." I ConvIcnion. p.. 2 -2 The SEIR reveal that there Ma y . gncd b wjih agric ulture; ; not "to such an exttrw . that it would, create presshire to convert Id- However,,clseWhere.11he. SEI e.ctc to,perinancntly change states that 'OyCT tune, the on-going� conversion' wou be exp - d' um ad accn I yeifock.' ardl i Wi iiftI&W. existin visuAl cbaMc;er'df'rUT0Ntal� ;,S�e�p_'13-5. The� j, t i Y s pieceofs it ld curn ulative. impact on farmland(conversion throughout the region: CEQA requircs Foof*i, the SEIR offers no- conclusion as to whethet. willbe rom fazmland conversion. A sigaific!ant�.bnpac t f j th PP Third, iheS I Elk ` feLilS p_ pond cct gulAfions of9ther the*rbJim1,;,iWlu&n9 'the- We .plans pol'Kies agcnc�ies w ith jurisdiction over �e e the, Wand Game, arpe, rKic California Department ofFi"' the U Fi's1h,andWildlife' Army Corps pf esje&W tgencyMafiaigemgnt� Agency and the R Jonal Watcr Quality Control 'inee , ,Board. -ourthffie SEIR fkils to "yze comp liance with Conditions 5,,1, 52,:54 a of Resolution hich applicable; land use regulations.. See,P. I to 1 7 8 .. w clearly am &W Tfie'fjdlilre t ri each of the ibove is - 'a procedural violation of C.EQA.�: - - UMarketplace Proi6d and Subsequent EIR 5' FIItbnnry S. 2004 C6rbmen.t , Re PetaPetaluma Peu Vi W � We5/2004 I I: Oj 51,08915! = bl f r -,3r- LOD JHY&0 k Jj� act Analysts Plains usses signi,tcant'hyam1b - C and The 6�1. gi iMpI!C-IS including flooding, water quality erosion/scdimentkion. Tle, significance, 4:9) is flawed tsit doesn't rocognize as significant impact wi n that hed floor eforne.w construction inconsistency tfiiheC t t"finis fl T levation � in the flw& plainjni'ust,bc two feet above the 160 yearflo.od elevation" (p. 5 - 10). • The �arWy'sis!"cit, is flawed as� thiem is, now evidence, before th; City *0,'die plain i I S not' foctabo-�e the 100 finished floortlevation fbrDe wnsuwionin�tbefiood l two year flo0daOevation. T-be,contlum'on:ibetlah,increise.w,rxwffdue�t..o theproj&t will Nd'vean insignificant inipact i is improper wherc,base6 on conditions in thcIetaltim-ARIVe , rather than on the Petaluma floodplain. • There is no analysis of the hydrologic of the detention baiin'to be constructed on the • northeast comer 6f Th PL.ArCOl',C- I There is no analysis of the hydrologic �npact&of the newY. ill" Drive�' NMch will' cross the Petaluma River. Biologic -y-'esolim ImpgOArialysis Flaws il s Res6lu'tion 91 - 156 *Web required,rnvi'Y parcels Band C to provide analysis of acts needed to minimize adverse' impacts to C-vpri,Crrck,-, the Petaluma I p River in . d other natu phyticat feaiws, including riparian habitat,:seasonAl wetlands, and freshwater marsh."' The SEIR fails to a 7discuss impacts' , to rate�plant despite the,requiremcof Resolution 91-136 that a survey tbrs'ucb plants be undertak en. jifipaCtS to.rafj�of,the,S siip in dd th IlieSEIR failed 10'" y7t PCCICSTrtsent�6n the cl ing,,,, e. Sacramentwspittai), despite the cornmexits o.f the Dept. of!Fkh Trafric add circulation Inomt Analysis Flaw Parcel A ti�5'96��'pa*0910icm 'Parcel B is prqjectedio;hAve 527 pai-Wig,spaccs and.Parr-cl o C 923 spaces. The SEIR fails �td'a th6mpact-of 61M,c c"ation,' withinand am pg parking lots. yZe c impActs oUthe new Village SEIR tails to, &W ' the traffi ,.ve which wilt cross Petaluma River. • February S. 2004 Comment Re: P j Village Marketplace Pmjeo and Subsqumi'EIR-, 6 02/05/2004 1 L 01 A 081il tj?,j r iqr— Y uircment Mat A, The SEIR fai ls t6 CD njpjy with,Resdjution9 I f* COhditiO n 51, (E req proi &C-,shall,be '0 _ with ects s peci fic, ir &60 AM P Vic iNCIS assoctatd identified concurrent with . h the environviental, w*ySi& of the specific prujoct" 51(E)'s r'_qtLj tement that iraffi'C' A SEik faitoh comply withResbI,tdiQn 9.j -1 10, COn r o f th tj parking aVA`Y_3i3 f pamoils11,and C'shall include eValUJWOP agreements with PParcel ifid the potential' 'need of prior completion of 16t W-west to CCt Ov rc pnar pli with Re§oluiion!94-T*Condition 5 ,Thi�$E[R,dotsrnibi-.inolude,discussion,,P com Failurelo vie the ,Whok!2lik �t'ct TlieSEIR f4icd' aa th wWk�ofthe pr Pe. to YZC C �vi opmcjdt of the aband6ned railtoad right o f way has 'not bee n sub-e y as oatt,of t990 FinaJ EIR nor this pT posed SM S f pi Uti Acaht veg�on,�-was,tost,,:a area was �f ... i q .1arl y ;th SEVZ f arikl e s fiheimpacf-5 corridot'And Imu lo inl "Y is:o from development of the parcel 6n, Villag litive is proposed'. w be lo-dated between, the PeWurna RiVercrossingAnd PeWW" Blvd, North Failure to AIWYZt LUd IM i . ,Of tk en v iro nmental impacts of the of locAl Sg lR , fkilg to� include " s VIM nm Th downtown bbsinesses As a -{Feswt_ of the PrOPPSCO, pro I a impact's to jc�' intludi, g adverse, lmpa downtown/Central peW unia ,t q on, a in onent ; and of the: central city efc6inmervial a employtoent, dmergegKyand Underi0EQA,z "direct and 'indirect si0ficant .effects of the;project on the gw environment shall be- clearly identkfied indditstrib;ed,;givihg duccoiisideratiotto�bdthifiC thiDfl-tc,rm' and long-ten d-iscussion s' alterations , 1 ed, phy I a� resourc in . 1. ,S cal.charV 0 should: include,-Irpleyant specifts of the Abe 111 SO ces' vO v popul di'stfibutio, Lai ncentratioh to Ccologicil q5;CMs,:aq c pop ' on'Co r human use of the l (including commercial and residential developme fiekMAhCsaf ety Of thC2 resource: base such as water, problems caused by the sical changes, atd' pther Phy. pe historical resources, r scenivqtWity,, and public Ctvjtes.1cEQA Guideline 15126.� s (a) J�be,SEIR has faijedito,,�nwd these requiranent Failia to I& Al UhMOi 41hk imp;_Wts. The SE�tRfailed to identify ScIsrnic as�Wwvoidab despite ,concluded that even after miti&tionAhe fu "fileant. The SEIR, also (fid not analyze - all sigdfflcdnt' i E • d Subic 7 February 3. 2o64 Commcd Re Petaluma Vilive Mj Pr6jed� an quent El f.. l ..C/ - 1. J1�17by1 ` _..b.b --I. l H1Y_�]Hf f IvL -; II 990'1?IR forPaiceI A Where mit gauons;were.never imple • tfied` . the lM mented and thus impacts;iden by r the pactswe unavoidable. ' Id. T� SE9]� 1F to A d equat* ABARY a CU]NUb&ebq "Cft The SE[R it lades a section devoied'to "Cup nulat+ve Impacts on >p.,13 -5. The ST IR 1) flails to ulanve a there is: ' um of cachlik,ly �( Y e impacts aualyLe the ate- P c no," sat of th►� cuminaUv to biol" resources teed to ° °property : analyze „.curia ` v pacts salting from the I,. Wati, a un re irxremetztal ' Past. pr°etrt `and reasonably foresee�able.future p igjec6 ' C uetnulative PoPlatiort, ache. EWR1oymen1- I1OaiK1 .Anslvsis Flaws y The SEIR�stantnart� camelt�es wit�outdi.�cussio ,:t}iit no cuanWabye' nnpacts` are exDe&ted "u► - � anon, o combinatop with other dc�+cl . ertt a pp l ications tb�c. could caul il housing;or employment irrep , ..” See p.:13 -5. Thisoor�clust�Rts flawed for at least thc+ee`reasurtLS: 1 1 1. An EIK' must pro vide analyse§ not, sttrtpty urtsuppottod cone on th may it serve its usaons; intcndedTggv c of Petn1W1aJ&ision -mA- rs and the''publLC:: B' ooh cor>s>d `` " 'develop eat applications4he SEIR:necessatilY d snot anal}ze 2 y . y' n . when the *Wiahge in the:eavirn ne0t "t '.'fmm the' PmJe� . p P and reasonably foreseeable . acts..• , 'Pending a evclopmunt applications" acrtairil tncluide Jocts. dclinc which- so . restricts `4ra.�bly foreseeable �J Moreover, dwre:b"no case lawn or- CEQA,gtu Y i " dewi a lecabons. that the public,, i mIuding David Keller, pmjecis to 6 optrterrt ;. pP. app Chelsea of, nut> otes reason ly ,foreseeable projects in'I comments on the Draft'SEK no adegiaaie ctanuilative impactaaaah'Sis. - been conducted- „ tr!?rad�cts the CEQA 3. ?hc lirFtiitaamor►b stgtv5cotrrt ,pvi1� °°, honB''or employmcrrt`urtpec'ts oo. skive itat to odder `tinct�v rtta1 "1m which ntay be individually man pact anal ysis 1- date`;tl�at a cutrrtil i , minor but.cvrnularivelY consi 'deisble% Oddly „the SER next jumps "to a diffc.c. conclusion that bdogo,a, t °the piiopowd project would not exceed the vil de' would. be no cbiartge,'iii cumulative of allowed in the' � . P�1 � •. im ociated with the (proposed) pmj n considered iii the.'envttonrnental Pact. ass, evaluation tl .0 aal Plari: See p. jht too'is flawed As di ug«i nbovc, %uiGGhh wnclusory statements avo►d the requrrel arialvs�s of pasty present and r+easonably=foreseeable prolects,Even if the I , i `` Cumulativelen t analysis at "p `13 -5, am,not'rectified in the "I7ee flaws en the SEIR'� s p wn,tuary of `lmpacts °tarty n which ot»its any mention.of''cumulet ve impacts . •Seep ES` 3 o thirough p. E -22. „ February 5, .2004' Connmont Re Petaluma village Marketplace Project and, Subsequent ElR 8 02/05/2004 1,,:01 51 06,919_60 BRIA1J_i14FFNEY PUCE 09 an�ounl and mrsersity" P� fam that the •• of develop�aen bpdj eXC�� th DotrlT3een J O t 1a8� . . ,� - wn uruque foorprtrrt and design whicb.*cr+e'not la�own un are ec(uiva each devel u>ent has its o' - -1 >en thc.Crtntxts! Plan. E1R was cettified;and which also may affoct poroezttial envroruuental unpacts purthgvthe pt&poss of'a Geroal Plan E[R is, avaluaw the imp$ets of tlae latad; use carastitution thee► - pm , a opted. Mere ood&blity with a general plaq ut and of itsr tf, u+ ll not Jt�s�fY a `fin�rrg that the ect bas`rio Si0ficant etry ronmetttal eff".,$ee Anhbch y..Pittsburg:;(]•9>$6) 1>3Z Cal: App. 3d 1325:... Neither the General EM on. tsrfaioe nor the Caty'ad; the t me:of ccrtificaiion intended' for that f1R to supplant the'analysis ccquirod'in EMs for spocific projects..- Neither - '.thc 'Cmwral Plan E1R or the 1990 Ella t h e regi' c►tmulaave im ro - .anal.' aW wvvw i& , pactx of the sad PI ' for:,Pairel A, adequately eddrssod • - Pedahutaa' iUage A9A*d' ]am p R', ck N6mbly,,pagjoct,9 ere,fnnr lc now which ffwnot,have`bet° r tt onhbly fores al le at,the time of ccrtifica6bn of the General Plana EJUR °c:r the ; 1990. E far Pa�d,A. 11aus "a:.ounoul v C'impad analysis today Could d f . , ?,C umulative Traffic lmpac4_A+s T?�e.'SEDt.cocludes tied "'as discusd in.C'haprcr`�," ttae propose ,project'larnild' thc,ptvjedcd ctiun ua c inc=z a i�ntrai�c,alortg roadways aMd at in in eboe vacinity "S a p. `l'3 rty.and a public either 'fthere _ it's possible tip'say if the EIR is nfocrnnngFtbe C r S. 'From thas stadetraent • is'a currtulaativc'impect or if this, impact is siBuf i nt: 'Ybus dbe SE[R doesinot caa1pl'y'witb?CE(1A ; Gu delime.9ection T5130.`ve�l a requucs;tdW'the t}ii� on of curnW.a ivt iihp -ts reflcd.0ac seventy of the imp�wts and'their: likelibo9d of occt mmm. if the c Jrnulntive urtpa� is reod significant; : tlie, SEIR - wh tt c cumulative'' is not si 6can tdenti facts',and analysis S briefly indicate y mom' t . �!; supporting that cluclus7on: - Referaixce to Cl*pter°Tdoes,;raot disclose a pro oc full cumulati t affc irnpaat di "scussion. C7ndcr tle title "fimir� coc�ditions. (PBs. 7 - 5,1 8) „the SE1R..reveals,thaaot'the[ revel of Servrce cr,tenarwn re traflyc anti for'the: a pplied to: a scenarids l) existing con ttioru, 2) =f tturc conditions. - Clpatedi Year• 201 S s” 3) °existing plus Px ojec t - the existing traffic voluutes,plus gay the Petaiucna ville�c.lv[arkdplace; cornparc :to next sentence where contribution to air quality is chaiWeriMd �as.a "s gz►►ficant'' 'cumulative impact f claun of worst -case aitc analysis, the future traffic• scenano ' was Belying the SEIR's tr d y . peak honu °,trafTic v,61a mcs; and : did nut includ the AM or midday peak' - evelo solel for PM . bours..(p; 7 -20). Howerer, at times, thc;lcvd of servrce ia,the.A.M[ is worx-then at PM "peak, - eg . ( uigtin/McD.owell• See Z' 7:. E_xisung Cunditions at. lnicrsccttion a4, Wash' ) P. E1R 9 February 5 „2004 Cdna. eat Re' Petaluma Viibgi! Merkctplsce Project aniq <Sutisequent 82785Y` <E)fJ4 11':[11 08.9193Q13, BFIAIJ_GAFF tj EY PAGE l0 • °' and Q � ;traffic anticipated "for 2015 plus °� the Peialuma�V�Ilage Nlarkcspl_acc pro3ect. p . )the fixture [rrdeed the modeliing whit} What is is exitnsnat�on. of;�st plus prestr►t phis fifime viects: u _ trcods Was replaced, app ly becsiise t - . ree Model ,:yielded results . cal utcluded `w�di.4clo� history„ characeer zod:anJy as `wns�able " Seep T19. Also, bccause'the SEIR does trot reveal whatprbiects were'inclu&d in the calculation of "future traffic anticipated for 201:5, it is irnpossiblc to laiaw if all `Ycasanably for> able pm 6m" were included'as`reguired by CEQ�V t riot; rl where;the SEIR;sttites tb�t'only two pro�e>Cts were included; is the cuMWebye "ysis the Rodwood Tecimoloa Park: m W a dawns flood control j ®ct See p.1 -35. ,As deWusaed tnfFa, these are numerousrneawneble foreseeable project&1in additiou to t two. Thus, the cumulative traffic analysis is again tltiwcd 19e:pf its ntyopx focus, tmevcntion , o in clear oo f controlling' CF,Q A law. Chapter 7 concludes 91iat the plus project co6ditioxe rest It in:potentwly §ignificant odes and 1__Tbc pn a Pamper and full City and 11te pub : Ved Of a irn to 3 ,intersa.'tnor>s ��Y lie. cumulative U unpwt, l riot been infoffna l if the LOS for' sc intcrsectior�. wavld degrade farther or if there am- other isiterscc0ons and roadways wE ch abb would, be siguificandy without,the uis to anal is c±�nulavve;iartpacta; the FIR,can impaCed. In addition, as dscussed, Y5 not have adequately discussed =mitigsdons for such impacts. C ve A ®ei' &mba sis Flaws 'ct would " oontributrto a cumorlative redion" in the ntt{nber of The SEIR Aaaes bothe pro ) . t}rose travelin al the ! 01 corndlot. 'Over trine „the on- going conversion open ammo currently sezn by S � would bee to Y chartge`the "exng visual characWr of °rural Petal P B This stateement doesenot disclose °to the �r- Nic:or the`Coi�cil Lvhet]�er the is siguficant, and thus aovoi class the . fails,to m ' 1 - vantS CEQA. Coal spgnii4,y,by, ding ifyusg >mp�t ay sigriific- trrit,,tl SJE1R canrP y ,. e „ tenhal'mrtigatioW for this Uth fikti�+e irnpa In comparison, chapter l 1 inalces'no attempt_to'du�ss Po of the SEIR discusses the ivdividual aestfwtie impacts of the project andiiconclud_es_ that there as a signi5cant >unp®ct fro I )1oss of tic resources, 2) degradation character and 3 -) increased tight glare and there j a cornrneptis miti0ou measures. C umulative Hydro L -D Impact Ar+�Flaws CYieptea S of tkae SEIR:diiscusaes sig;<tihcant bYdrologic iunpacts includingfliing, water quality o Fetxvary . :.lObd Coinmrnt t�E[R. 10 5 Re::Petal t uu� N lisge Martcetplsce Projec and Si bscqueo < 62/85/_004 11 : 61 516B91933d BF?iArJ_I AFFr�EY FAGS 11 aiid crosor✓sedir�entafion. See ltnpac�s 5.., l -,53. The fails to'include a valid,aoalysis ofcumu)ative hydiologic immam. First;'therc isno;analysis of the change in theenviroamx�t ccszilpng `frorn;theEpmjoct 4aMed to,past prtsenulnd rsasonabiy fa able projects. "Tbe onlyother:idwt, project considcr+od in flue m w cumulative impact analysis is the Rodwood 1 ochnology. Ce�ltet;" See p. 5 -26 Thus, the SEIR" cumulative impact analysis 'onl coxisidesed ''two p c & See p:. 5 -26, 5 -29 {flooding), - Y' 5' 29 (sedimentation): That is no consideration of 1 incl Parcel AAidvelopanerzt )' a" st projects, udtng anyotbct pro cct,ir1 the petatiiana River. floodplaiii, 2) oilier existing developm mts.ot 3) any reasonably foreseestble fimme jec t& oiher than:t kAedwvod.Tecb Palk. `be,SE[R remwicably even iFW-M— , the Airmy 'Core downstitam.,',flood con-W. project,, despite dew Bing fug pmjocis for Pdirp ises of cumula&,r impacts as IinCkidittg thislood`Ptojea See p; 1 T7he SEIR did'not consider the 'ctrdfiti t Vt'hi)�love impacts despite acluwwledPng.hi"y carncnercial'usesto tlnc +i®ur�iabc west; industrial ;andresdetttal:eastaca+oss U:S. 101,;and the�Petahuna Livestock Auction Yard'to the north "(see p 1,-1) and the development of Parcel A. Theme am Also nuawn z ieasor>sble foreseeablz�projects'whrch wcrc not considered as discussed fully below. CEQA does not permit a corisrarr ed cumulative impact analysis ofregiooal impacts. "Boeeuse. of the pgvxittuty of *w , p vjed site to the' P !River hydrol4c. issues are of pnnWy'importsrice. - to the Project SF1R" validity., See P. 5- ,I.'Tbe SET t,jonding,model coiuidored the 'Petaluma. River, dO V4' V' stn of willowbmik tluough; +Pctalurna ]River upattearn ofLynch (�raelc H owcvcr, no- analysis' of ctunulefive `impaccof present and'mzsonable,fomseeablep ojocts located even within ibis ]united stretch of "the Pctalu liver was inchkW in this SFJR. In X rigs :Eo_u»y Fcrcnr Brvearr! v Cry of Hanford „(1990) 221 Cal: App..3d 692,713-72M.- the " set aside an EIR:Which failed to'eorvidcr'the - s: Sohert, this SEIR:is flswW for such a antis atr'basan ,ur its cumulative impacts' ati�alyst ' taking coils npo gVroach to cumulative hydrologic: impacts which' is of p ocular concern gaven the imvrjgbi*l.of floodinng `ia:the Petahm'ra River lloodplaii . Scoorid, the SEIR' fails,to consider the evrnulat v+e'.effei�t of flooding on the.Petaluma.River oombivad •with'its three tributaries which run tFu±oi gh the pro p osed;projoet.. "tn,edditioti to the Pc.W rr River ,'scveialsrnaller.tnbtitary str,e�ru traverse'the Projcci site.::All'three []streams dtaua.,uttderHighway 101 ;through culverts, cross the Project;sitc, and dis har i to: tbc; Pctaluma Riven." See p. '5'2' ~ • 7rtird, the SEIR coml+letely' avciids a cumuletivt: `yvater quality” analysis: The SEIR, Feonmry 3 2004:Cownent Ra,Peteluma VrllegesA!Iatketplace Project acct Subsequer� E'LR 1'I 02/65/' 11 61 iinpest►issibly assumes, wit hout any s upport in g Aita or analysis that p-iwa the of water quality C3MCUM Pac miti aw.umes for ,each individiWpmjcct inpl-wc c-)isigro .7 would rcWt;fiVxn the two pr*=1 SOe p. 5-29. However, under. CEQA analysis of cumulative impacts cao6 be ot avojW�, the umupported" assumption that WhAeVer ijMPWtS:offiff pmjeLft;may hay ffic court of TI, fiwu--;si in EiR 6Vcuinulafiv'e impacts cn=V, �&vyelopnievts si �nigffl. to the C� on. W�F ca contains no4ist,of the pro oti,regardmg jects p9nii4cr4 �no: irif G. 1 �- pl�� - liWve - impacu. b t6ir tsop m3owcs no "ysis�d the cuinti f px�ed impec grounawi= -~.Ivllsecuttiollcl.,Mftte-vt-e- io-c-b— -E-u—Y-' byexisiing and cio - . 11. . --- - -r -,,K , ir jj=nt some data data ) M� o f PUMCJ WvW on *.e rvrlrl�� VCM� In, iroi th voljE�- :of � pv nod by • allsuch �prq)ects, J AsImpossible to evaluaw,.. WhetkxT the inipacts assodowd with their use of we sig�S� mid whetter such i w iU-i n d ee d b by the wate cmwrvabon the EIR relies. County 221 CalApp.3&at 929-730 (exnphasi5.iad ed). Here, the SEM does notevP mention RedWOOd T=hnOlDV Park mitigations wfiith it mlics. An ance adequate cumulative irnpact�,4nalyms� would *void such unsupported cp nclusiodsofifflignific an , oonsidw Ad 0'ast prvs=* brojects as discussed above-I t mutative Bi6l6gical kesourceg hpnt Analnis Fla Ili Agoiish�y,'tht 'has'nb' of 'the cumulztJVc thig.prut o to biological resources. A thoto4jih CXIMIIII&c. un PUP ysis jvW i As Taticularly., upportant here because of the , IMP"'fibinthe pric!j aidonc. Ei& signific'milA aoverstirrtpact from the PrIP)ect are idcadfied in Ns nparia haNtaklpond turtles; rpd-legged frogs, ' pea , t6� jbgs,of misonAl wetlands nesting yellow" wm neslIM'Dofthern'harriers, nc."rtg white-tailed Idles and', degradation of water, quality. See p- 6-25duough,63I. hem theft is not evcnaipy,rrwntion,oftijinu)ativc�inpac4 or ixnPWM a4nd fuftxrt; . proj-ecis. sesourrxg of 'M Ye ft. curnitiliti b* 1 7 ve� up fion,jlie, SE, Zd Tact �to , to, I op L dCVCI p coctcxt n o way an o , I r and I , . , ?pnWP . , , , 7 . . _ I I oping tit i:�bfthe,ibandoheO Parccl A, �i'g"cwt vegk'�fion was lost,;A iipwi, ima, was'fifled,,.a,vvtflAhds conidouand,'wedands acreage vvercj6st,*i6"& & 1 ent 6f4le,., abaiAoned railr6id ri� way. F4ure tb-Qog�," �C— �5Q TheSEIR,discimion fails.to include eithm list of past, prpsent, mid probaNe future prqj=t5 producing relate&or vurnulativc impacts, including djose pMjCCtS out3idC the control 'bf the City. cir Febwmary 5, 2DO4 C4*nrncnt.:Re: pO Mwkct;>Iwe Projw zod Subsequent ElK 12 02/06/2004 11: 01 5:'0691 9300 BRIAIA_GAr Fr4E1 F"GE 13 2),a : of ectiowzonmineddn an a _: . __- or ;related I, _ -' - docummt, or;in • swrunar� prol getDeral p11an p ar>nu�g A prior CCIViIvnrnentaVd6cu which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated 'reoonal or , areswide condtioas.cori�ifi�4 tothe currnilative iui>lpact. Further fete SEIIt fails -.to define' the ahic "scope of t�ar+ea by the cumulative effects and fails to; prvvide;a:rronable.. . explanation -for this gcogta& nitation Faihxe to AdMustely Analyze the `Curnulat ve Impact:of Past; fti The SEIR also acknowledges the it has- excluded dk most :inWrtW, past project the develvlmnerit of 'Parcel' A;- the existiiog I95;000, square foot >Y `mall development. ' The SEIR expressly focuses on;dcvcloprneaut.of'Paruls`$mid C; "and;nut rm thr environmcntal effects associated with the kmlaprnerrt of Paroel:A." Seep. P *, ca pWa s . In edditiort, the SM does not i'nklude the;urcrrmental itnpacts of past projects whine acicnowladguig s ,exist in the irnoied afe?saurnuddings See pgs. l - 1 ;; 2 -3 (ti gh"y oomrr rid uses'ro:the irnr temx- st;jn ial and residential uses east across U.S. =101 includingIo riot Iiinited to Redwood Business Paris III; PcWurria"uveswck Yard tot he north.) F wih �t:,A equa�clyAnalYZe 'theCl�nulanve - aab_bffomseeahlel uttuc'Pmteds The SEIR states that its corLSideiBtion of fu a+e projects purposes of cauruilatr.ve impacts was Iirnited io,. only two 'projects 1) the Rodvroad Techaology.:Paulc, and 2) ,; dowmtzam flood coiftol project. ;See p. '1 =35. There: are numa�uY rcasoiisblc fo eaccablc: prnjo�s in �addrhon��to these we,, inching,, infra alit 1') the 3U:.acre Ncighbotho od, at Deer Ovek application,�dikrctly -east of 101 l` .:(commercial and residentralr, :2) the 'Rohnen perk tribal casino Fedrrawd, marts of .Graton ;`'Indian. "iflnpeM ilcdy a OW, to traff c, Sonoma Co. Water Agency wager; power generation, wisstrwetcr and dnergerr services), 5) Rainier - U.S.101 F _ _, jor Y' ree'"'ay �e lnterchan ttridJor Crosstown Cotmeeoor, 4) a tna residential subdivision at,PcWua%a Hh d.and Jessel_`arse, 5) the possibility tbathe,existiN rnal.:st Parcel: ,. A will be leveled a6d rebWlt, 6) projects in. the CeartW Pe4ahana. Specific, Plan prnjecf 'area, 1 the \ Johnson:Propml ;petrhhaa�ts - : lofted for ovcr'300`�its.of houL iM- 8);proj" related`to annexAtion ol, • box,dcvclo exis ting Pacific - . northwest=Petalwna, 9)`hrg , pmrntaf the site-of the,wus ' Citseuie�theater, 10) cha - siores added existing retail shop*8 oenters_ai P.lam'North, Plaa South and. blast it goon Squint„ 11)' redevelop t of°K_en worth Junior F igh',School , site, 12) at;`the Arbe Lumbe.usite 3) ass'af .M ova Avcouc and` Paula.Lanc, aril l4)':expansion of "Santa,.Rosa Jureiar new housing prod agn - Colle&_At';a rt inirfi n the' should_ have consiaa+ed those reasonablyforesceablc hturt projects r 13 Pc4xmaary 5, 2004 CommenrRe:;'Petaluma'Village MarlcetPlaee Pr( �i read .Suhunum - , 0/65f?00'4 11; °0i 51ak3915 8S BP at4_G= 4FOI r=A�E la C `whisk., _ SEIR haraeteri'zed as "thc'levcl, of;develop cne that the City °Wtiinately: anticipates. in the M vicvuty of * ,oject'site (p. CRZ55), r,efererccing F 2�.�1 and12.2. `Tn the regional rgtus becatr,9e , fact,, 0 nature ofnoan . of theseim ` „ (e.g? trafi -c wafer, dovvmWnRctal'Ma' tghi� the y' y5' oolstder;pvjodts aarts 'the "inuiodtate"'vicinuty (c.�. flood issts within the floodplain). anal es such ticir all un as' as farloa.to. eo�ider The cumulative i these P1- mpact a�nalys pacts �9 CEQA regtures thAi the ctunular ve, ihtpact analysis include "reasonabi fort:seeeble' future. projects: This SEER li io its° ctiiinulaLvc' im Y _ . anal sis to' thou ''formally, received' by City and pacts "considered compleoe." Lo doing so, ivreplatces the CEQA's swdand of reasoMbly foi-c es le future projects with "absolutely foreseeable" hdure Mjeets The cumulmmtive . tlevvs;di -- pacts scusscd,above are procedural flaws in iheSl] , and rc a not .based on a di$erence in" on nor , refuted opine sunply'by substantial evidoxe If ,the City were tp oertify the SEIR in its current f+a�rn, it would bt a sing itself c� 'udicial runny on these veay,issr s. "[I]t is= vitally 1 impartm>IZ' an EIKTavoid Minimiz rig the cumulative impacts 'IL tl-, it'rmust refloaa conscientious G , effort to vide ublic arzca public with; trnoe pry ' p a and the" p adeq and relevant detaileii infa�rtnation about than. 'A cm4 - dtrve im arsal " { � � � pe,et ysis which 'fates . rnfimYmetion'wncemiug the severity and v � .: ` . ";aad skews the,decisioranaalixes Ri rficartce ofcurnulati a impacts un�des,'aaeaningful pub ltc discussion paspa Ve `u carriing the <cnvirorirr ental coayoquc cs of tDic project; "the nemessity °for' nruti0tion aneasunes „and'the appropri ss of project approval.' "MbW Lion `Coahlion v; 'Fish acrd Game Commission `(1989) 214 Cal, App. 3d'1043, IOS I ; Kings Cauno , rtgAij,22.1 Cal.App3d at 723, citations omitted. - IV. I ®m&qua4e ttu1'ys�,:o5 Propo AfaQi�a aious U'Poliay'A�tId�L 1,� se o�n flaws , Ttw SEIR fails to addrr arty p po Julatow- ' ionthgstians°related,to land use lao' lides and reg - f jydrolo�c Mrteatir��Flaws There is r�o ; anaalysis of mitig ations for the hydrologic impacts of t detent basin to be cons ructed' on the nonhcast corner of Parcel C. There is rm analysis•of mitigatiaris for the hydrologic irnpac of the"new Villagee Drive which will cruss re; Petalttnuilki Tlicm is:no analysis of,tht' ffecti��eness of the proposed hydiolo®c,mitigatigns. ;For example, Felmr 5 2004 Comment Re.1?e4atume V �, , � illrrpte Merlcetplsce.projod mnd 8u6sequcnt E!R N 14 02l ®5/^00:a 11:'H:i i 08?153BD BFIAN_GAFFNEY FaGE 15 til tigation S.l..t cbjims to:minuniaeOw,'intrusiomof buildings into the.#lood�plain. Yet, there. is • no disC=Jon of .the buildings will, ed Alor there disclosure of the, a nu or locstion;ofthe Pctalurne „flood _aain °; ,ar j_ a7ignxtim. .ithaa d; closure of the„ p >f pi�st prof: . location of thc'bwldings and the extent,and',loc do of the; flood plain, the'QptM it aMW the publ is kit unable to ; d - etM ineAc c&CUveness, of pvposcd miitiigmtion -, it is ira to'oonsi der a signu5cant impact to be. zuttgated to a poutt of less. then stgnificz= b so l sol l: o ' $oar�ard9, • t* l Iy where as bem wate ' Q13811ty has boen e y' c� meenng l detenr rood w' ,be §303, J mited.. „ ffiol�ical` Rcsourccs -A� 6 0 ion EkV . -. CEQA _ ,wires that tivhcrc scvctsl' mcmure`s, are available to mitigate an. ,impact, `the: basis for roq selci,tiri& a, parti;*w mra"sure sbuul�i; be idc trfied. The SEAR fails to ptvvii$e this .basis for : P:o�sed; biological' resource mitigations.. The SEIR de&m nniti'gations withoL&sp= 6- standards or °criteria . The SEIR,I'.as''Wed to consi&z ar disctus the frasibil ty of propose mitigations At taming on bused fiscal parrots and a4pctnents :frnrn:.other agencies .may- : not be 'feasible: Axty mitigati on coiitributioetis from 1hc' C? lgea:are ldccly infeasible given,, 6 t "C!wIwa has failed to tua Oy'p y P _. . , MiWi bohars into an unrest- be�v�g'escrdu' as reyuued try- Resohrtion #91 -12-2- attd' Resolution #91 - 136 fort gft tnili pdons. Mw SEIR- fsilsAo analyze the.feastbiliey oftheproposed tritti'Q;ation +in light of Chelsea's hisutrr in 6s; regard. Likewiw, the 'SEIR avoids' dLwussion of feasibility of p7opvjed' on resulD >fmm the ,Px=l A, N itigaton MoniUoring,;and Repo rung Plan ntitigatians: based, ; _ -- - . The SEIR !s'to discuss mit gations;to rareplarrts despite tl requirett eni:of'Resolution 91 -136 that a survey foe such plants be; undertaken present oe site, :including th+e 7Iie SEJR,fa' W to ar* �ze:m tigati . for all of'the V=es pr n th Sramcato spittail,.despite ttieFoomme of the'Dzpt..of Fish and Game. TIC SEQt'Wed to ilrfine the location of w�ctlands on tlie „proje�txand the loca?inn and ezterrt of mutigations T bhC SEIR fail3 -ta &wu":fcasible rnitigat ibn for the,,dw ges °tn the g.29- acre abm&ned Tai lroad r ight ofwa Si cw vegctntioawas lost done ”- ni "area`WM filled,:a wedands core dor, ,,and wetl"s - „ acreage ,, wem , kpst with`tliis di elopmerU. Yet 111h SO R fails to discuss any mitigation;foz these impacts .1,5 Fe6n 5. -,004 CQGmen(Re• Petalum`a'vill age Mark lace Proiect and Subsequent ElR . • 1 02 %85 /2F304 ] 1 ?E11 BPIAlq_&: FNEV PiluE ] 6 L . bt required eniiviTnnincrrtal rrNww,. SF.IIt viotes la RP "solution 91 - =1'36 which 13 and C to provide ersalysts of mitigation r :tn'`muiimiiie adverx irnpactc.to Capri t tieelt;; thePetalma River and other natural physical forces ,=lu&V riparian habitat, seasooael wetlands arui' fmhy±-, marsh. PleP. . I n further violates Resoluhon.91 - 136'" cm of.a The SEIR as thet+e'�'hs9 ��been no, v - enhacerrx plan for ftr els,B'and C, u>ciuding identificaisiomoTcreer,setli� based onenv rvranental I values' hydrologic�co�,,.aW pmtccdon and; preservatioiLpf'existing'habitat Traffic,and:Ci=lation KfiP on Flaws CEQA.requires that wh= sdversl:rileasurrs are availAle to mitigate an ,impact, the, basis for sclecting a *ficubw measure sh.Duld be identified. The SEIR fails to prpv de, °this basis for proposed tragic aM circulation mitigations. • The 511R'defers mitigations withoui'specifying perforrtaancc sbukk rds or criteria. The SRIR has Failrrd, to oonsrder , or discuss the, feasrbidity of gibposed 'nvtigatiahs. Any mitigation blisM owfiscal contsibutSans rftorfi Ahe Ch&lsea are hkely'.inf6 ible given that ClAwa - has failod`to timely pay 51 31 Ilion' I2ollars into' a9n : inwtest a dng;eacaow,as required by Rcs ohnion #91- . 122 and Resolution #91 -136 for bvffl c mitigations. The SEIR `fails to analyze the feasibility of the mid om'in light of Chelsta'i.lu story. id t proposOd gati gh hus' ncgard; In response.,to comments the SEIR acknowie+dged that, in the'abkncc <offuni!4,.cffwbve implmv=iti6on-ofproposod traffic ,mitigations is in doubt. See CR262. Likewise; the SEIR avoids'discussion of feasibility of proposed mitigations based results ftrnn the Parcel A MGtigadon Monitoring and Reporting Plan. The SEIR failed "t6 consider feasible °traffic mzitigations, including those pn7posed by Caltrans. See CR77 (1 -5). The SE R fails to'coanply withiResolution 91 -136, Condition,51 (E)'s requirrmcnt thiat specific, at; a -wide" 0afc vicuuty mid' " nniti6ations associated with prnjecu ' an B & C shall iderrti fled oorww- =t . with V*xerivunnmcntal analysis of the specific project. Mitiag6n dCmulative.Impacts CEQA has trspotzd04 to the problem of incremental enviror>rnerael degradation by requiring Y P • 4 pects no attempt w di's " te�tial auh®atiofv�en�cutn s af`the caunulasve >xr,.the; sEIIt melees aw pt po y cu m u lative impact, Febnisry.5, 2004 Commc>at. Re: Peta'Iuma Village tytarketplace Project and Subsequzrtr:ElR 16 ®2/05/2 ©64. 11: 01 510891;931,0 BP.IAN_G4FFNEY PAGE 17 YI. Tbe`EIIt?Fiiled to;Ade elate Rea 'to Comments 9 ly po ®d The; govenung'standard,for response to •`cgmtncats InIrFEIR re4uires'that: "1n preparing: the final LR, agency] must ,descn � l the disposition of each ;o the significaret;environrriental, issues and must particularly set forth _in_detail'the•ieasons why the particulercouunen Wand objeenotes v►+er+e:rejecteii and =why the (agencv]�considered° the, developmeal of thc; projcct`to br of ovemding importance.. A eonclusory statement - ported by emplilrii l o'r expenm!rn �' scieTitrfic' authorities, or. eapanatory n tapon•of?a kited' notonl fails to,c : Y Y rys4llize issims (citation) btit "affords no basis fora ., a comparison of the pt+oblems. involved° with tfte ; pr oposed, PtoJecf? sad; .lbe �rfficWties to `tire alternatrvcs:` (Citation.:) Moreove commcns from responsible involved r, w f 'agencies disclose new,or, conflicting d or opinionsthavcause concernthat e ocrts . Cy not have frilly evaluatcdthe proloct °acid its alteraatrves „these connnents ntiay p. y t?;nored• must' be good' °�fait reasoned analysts in,r moonk. (Ernph sit - add ed,)(Grtatioa. otmnod) , _.., We conclude that; the [agmcy':sj failure to rzspvnd Ob specificity in the fimel EIR to.the comuacnts end °objections to the drift EIR rendegs,the final EiR .fatally defatrve % (People v. Caunfy- of Kern ('1;970.39 Ca1.App 3d 230, 841 - 841',; ° StortislatasN al Her rage- Projec►v,Cognry.0 - SianisPQus( 1: Q9 6)#8 :Ca1.App.4' "91.;) F ... TheS'EW. s Response to Comments (RTC);faili to: l ), describe the d*pidsition,of each of the " sigru_ ficant�environmental ',issuesraised-. 2) detml the reasons why the p*Upulercornments; and{objeet ons were irejected,'3) =set forth the Cityconsidered the, developrnerit df'the project to be of ov'cmdeng importance, 4) avoid;conclusory staterricnts'itnaupported by data of .explanatory information, and 3) providc.eood faith, rea.4oned;artalysis DEG Comments w.public trust doctrine , „ age y. spo ty commnon la the, DFGkts!the.stae nc with rc nsibili tmderthe' Fish Game Code and the California, Endangtred Species °for ensuring the ong term surywal_ •, of California's vv Idlife and habitat: In that role DFG's °comments `demand good faith and reasoned analysis;;and'detailedItason"s why the particular cbrnments and objections were rejected. T hc'SEIR in its current formwfatls to Mee_C these CE,QA;standards. For example, DFG comments .that the SEIR must , anslyze impasts�to ttbelhead migmtionAnd' Baring habitat'-'',bec�iuse „of the project s`potcnt el to impact _Pew tuna',Rivcr, -its :riparian wvodlands and,; adj'ac ent wetlands. DFG ° comments. that Table 6 - and Table 64 are inaccurate - regarding steelbead,. 'Sacramento !spiitail, California freshwatevshrimp. DFG commerimthat the D Aft,SEIR"conclusions regarding impacts to fish at , p. 6 -3 °1 are -- not justifioX' and ihai'stmlhead,'Sscramento sPiw 1, Califorma.frtrshwatcr she mp"cou d . be "sigid"fkantly impacted” by °amew bridge wd by utili crossings'.:, The-RTC responds that mitigation for a rtion of.the,pmject `tillage Drive Bridge —would reduce. effects.to,steelhead: (Response!F =1) U.nder'CFQA,. rlikiiation does not substitute for the analysis recornmerided by DFG'as rflecttvc w d feasible mitigation can only betproposed:once •the impacts 'haye :been analyzed. The RTC avoids any discussion of:irn S „from utility cnossiugs Inaccucies pointed by DFG in Teble'6=3, Table -`6-4 and rcgariing.i'n�ccusaeiesin tke praftPSEiR ra - ace,Rojod and °Subsoquent, E]R 1 February 5,,2004 Comment'Rt :Tctaluma Vitlage:Marketpl � F iji P4GE 18 S c ussionl'o itcellicii, presence and spawrung. bAdAt A thepi�pict( Site; (p.6-21) are completely , t, ignbr�d. no responsive analysis JsPTOY�Oed regarding `Nmpaets" to ste4hea d. J DFG comments that insufficient information is Msentcd in thC'Draf1SEJR to justify a iblezhitigations Concl1!Siqn,'(p,6-32). thatnorriitigatlonis -needed- DFG the&SJJMM5�xparatc fens f the: impacts foreseei"10 Special status fi sh. T`hc RXprovides no r to this comment. Soo Xpsporise F-6 The RTC provides no response toDFG's comment that fKukd suiv' CYS maybe needed. to confum that there will be' impacts to shrimp. DFG thatthdreis4no:diSCUSSiOn Dfthe im ts'oft propo PAP be Wfiver walk trail and suggcsis;4,mifigation thai iheri walk trail and any landscaping; be located outside the 100 foot landsc;Tc' 's'etba6L%:The "'RTC 4I[;,:providc the requested, unpact analysis or address,DFG's comments; the RM,reitioit the proposed project. I. . 0 • No ;revisions were ,, made, to Chapter 6 of the SEIK, in.reesOpose. to VFG's substantive comments. % CAL13LANS Cornmei Caltransinquirtias to the fixnetiblefior implementation proposed in Chapter 7 i r6lation to thr'projec I t development schedule. Tlie RTC tiL-f ce§'cildhficadons at p.'CR9 CRI 4. Review of that section provides: cs: no infMrfationi on, the timetable for implementation inrelaitibnlo the project development schedule.. Thus 1thc'SE1R_'6s;fai I ledlo provide req the uired'good'faith," cid respon sI set forth ;in+deWl'thC,MWOn3 ,Whythei�commenisand .; I;Yeason, objections wer BAAQMD,' BAAQMD e -su tantiall more to inifigate'thc air quality impacts and to 'bs Y reduce vehicle trips - bey,9I the SElk's "generic list disconnected from the SpIccific.,proicct or - location," as the vehicle emissions tof Aiis project are more tharidotible the D . istrict tfiresholds. Specifically; 'BAAQMD. recommends 'consideration of reducod parking space and employee incentivesiolide,tritnsilL The RTC rejects the idea-ofp re . p I aring I more airqualitymiti mitigations, wi 'providing deWlodreason why the BAAQMD comments and,objections rejected. While the City,cotinci 1VAll1UltimsMy1de6 M -isto: v6dc cffcctiYIc, feasiblc ii-Ag;tiom de,' the roleof the EIR pro for the CouOJlJo;qTisi&f PMPC'WaJrlywwhe here, ;the SEIR's mitigation ! , "s' fail to mcasute reduce air qtI '.act' ' . 1 , 'IlI iknifk�rit. - 1� ' Jtylipp s,�� p, ess4 ii s, Abi RTC furibef �ffil s Ix it dom not xi forth rig iM why the dcvclo pMent,"of,�'trie cbrisiderled of overTidi pqrtAnft. David 1K611crIC The RTC & )eS h .re pacts .Keller comments regarding lo� garding impeO& to; ,emp loyment and February 5, 2004 Czmment Re. PeWUMa MW*418CO Project andSubsequeWER 18 82 /e5 /_`bO4 1 1 : G1 51 Fj8.91,93B-3 SRI AN_ G"F FNEY PAGE 19 g ( ) pond enr g�ir consistcncy with each. ho J) 1 '. Tbe�RTC does,nat�res to K eller s comm ts regardi GenendYlan ".Central Goal" (IM), with General Plane Chapter 8.03 5); �or ith,;G eneral Plan: . e Chapiec' 3' (J] -6). Instead the';:RTC reiterM s the Draft SEER position i egard ng General Plan' land rise designation, ";hergby.failing to describe the ;disposition of the signif cant issuesr.raised by Kcller regardina;GP Central G'o'bls,,Chapters. ll and',3, and farl>ng `to pr+ovade:t}ie reasons wliy the conau�ents were rejected., Tlie RTC responds to Kelley'sommrns rrgarding projeet'iiteonsispency venth Rivet Access,.ai d .Ecdraucement �Specific� k'lar by, stating ilte' project rs.' "generally consisZCnt;'" Without explaining the degree; and scope'of "the consi'stency'/incon9stmcy, the RTC has employed impermissible conclusory, statemerrts unsupported.by.data or explanatory information. While .tnu. that the:C tyCouncil ?will dcwrmine`General Plan - consistency, the E1R.'s`role is't promote informed: decision'"rr*id g'by'aadmsing consistency:. The -E-IR has i further role -of respondir* to coinment:s b ti noi comofy with CEQA's' proccd.urel mandates; y the `p bhc Here, :because sh SE,IR does ' certification wouldTbe ofdi dctiom 76'e RTC does not respond to:lP Icr's commedts ricgardin "g the project's direct' an&indirect,.. Immediate andlon term adverse et& to -the can .. - tev of Petaluma from, `the derinise of .local`. >3 _. pa downtown businesses as a :rcyull ofxthe proposed project, including advcrsc unpncts to Central 'Petalunna�,traffic and ,,circulations,, urban blight,. atiandoniment and decay of the central `city am other existing corn-01 cial;atcas, ermploymcnt „low: incomchousiha need sfor low ,ncome:mall ernployces, emergency° andpolicy.ser (JJ -2 =3, 7, 9) Thgsc are not meatly"economic” problems, but clearly have environmental; plty5 ic8l, impacts wh ch sy `be sigx�A ant ° The RTC` again employs, conclusory 9tatcrnent, unsupported bydatts , orexplanstory' "uzformationand thus avo►ds;tie good faith . reasoned analysis'reyuimd by CEQA -:• The RTC:;doe , °not respond „to Keller's.co lments.regarding:a duty to 'use °the':m�st recemt and - g pti position . _ ._ d si m 'ficant tsstre ^The RTC Won't Keller s r o t hat there, pf ec e emeAing of'8;- larger- ro _ ;'which would a roadway p 'joc . onncct,tna Raiuier (`JJ =114):'Tle RTC does not respond to�Keller's. comments that the U:S. Army Cures of ;EOvneers told `Petaluma all additional building upstream _will comOt6thise the'flood control project (J7 .18):, T}ie `RTC does not 6 lJrider ('EQA t "direct and indirect ,sigouficant effects of the Puvject'on the envrronrracnt.sl all'. , clearly identified and descai>d giving due consideration to, both the short =tierrn 'and,loirg -teen effects Tbe'discussion stiould,inc ude-relev,ant specifics' of ttte yea, tl�e'resourccs involved, physical cl►artges, altctaUons to systcins and cfianitesandu i n, population - shit and' i, t ' uman ( Y P y tog commercial es ,and o anal di stribution, populagon conceiatraaon, the�Q► blenns ca b tht�husical char .the as id o�the resource base such as �vatrr resowces, g pm _. _ scenic quality and public st;rviM." CEQA Guidelult 15126.2(x), cmiphasis.' dad 0 1;9 Fsbtuary 5 2M4`bm Cment'Re: Petaluma' Village ,MArketpl»e Project and Subsequent'E[R, ®Z/9512U ©'J;. 11 :31 15`16891' -;h0 B 'IAN_GaFFNEY PAGE 20 spo turn.ulaUve s, of wedands-for the lRdoes nut assess the los - - upper Petaluma ltlYCf basin where this re nd to iGcller s�convrtents that 4he SlE ppe proposed project is Located 01 l 9). The ,RTC does not r '; there needs to be. serve f ' espoA�d 'ro �C eller s comments that'' � , ys orll'sYuim "peas. the surveys co®ducted Caere oin season RTC does °not nd t - g - ng the altertattve of purchasing the The respo o Kelley's conuncnts•re ardi' Corona Reacfi of the Petaluma R ver as s park; the need for anahysi`s of additiortal species, atio " Cy n Zone, or the cumulative loins to the River corridor t 1J -2 1). anconsistcn wtth the Oak:Prescry sp y po esie issues, but only with Re ocue JJ -21 sokl references Res . nse F -g which deals;with none oftb conaerns'br the kWQCB regarding.thit river walk trail. • 20 Community Developmeni,Department Planning Division, 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952 (707) 778 -43;01 Fax (70Z) 7.78-4498 E- mail:. planning @6.'Petaluma;caius DATE: March 19;-.2004. n 1 TO:. Mike Bierman, City Manager FROM Mike Moore, Community Development:Direetor Betsi Lewitter, Project Planner John Courtney, Lamphier - Gregory;, SEIR Consultants SUBJECT: Petaluma yillageMarketplace, Response to February- 5, 2004, FAX from Law, Offices, of Brian Gaffney Per your request, the following is a response io the FAX received from. the Law Offices of Brian Gaffney on Februar y 5, 2004. The 20. pages submitted by Mr: Gaffney addresses what he 4 . considers to be made uacies ofthe Subse uent,tnv '. • '" q q ironmental Impact Report (SEIR) completed by Lamphier - Gregory for the Petaluma Village Marketplace ( Planned Community District Amendment. It shouldbe noted that the required 45- day xeview period for -the Draft Subsequent E1R originally began, on December 2, .2002; however, due to lack of notification` to some interested parties, the public comment period was revised to begin December -18, 2002, and end on February 3, 2003. . In .addition, although encouraged but not required, by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the `Planning Commission held public hearings on the Draft SEIR ,;on Jan uar 14 and . Mr.. Gaffney did: not submit written, comments during the 2003. , public review p period n ddhe s eak at the Planning Commission public hearings; His letter was received., by the ,Cityof Petalma on February 5, 2004; tone year after the public review period on the DSEIR had ,'formally ended. After the January 28;..2003, Planning Commission meeting the Cit y ' ' s. EIR consultan t, 'Lamphier Gregory, was, directed to prepare the FSEIR, pr l miss ons odremise ne retations. T ents received on the Draft SEIR. and clarifies any errors; rp he Planning Commission reviewed the Final SEIR, on April 22, 2003; at which time additional " input was taken. The Planning Commission then recommended certifications 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 immediately following,in plain text. The Planning Commission `s recoinmendation that SEIR be approved is not binding on the City Council. The: City Council tak.esindepprident . 'action on the proposed ,proj'ecl'. It can either certify the ;SEIR. • as adequate and complete Or disregard' the Planning C MITI S Q_ is ion's recommendation and, not to certify the SEIR, as adequate and complete:; Substantial changes in' the 'subsequent, I I project were,inade, in � the. Pldhning' Comm.issiOn s _ PCD approval hearings.. , Although the, Plannihg, Commission hearthgs have -rdsaifed in some mOdIficati6ns to the description of 'the Petaluma Villagp. Marketplace Pr 'ect as defined 'in. the. SEIR, the 0 1 modifications would riourbsalt in. any new S . ignififcant environmental effects not evaluated in the SEIR 'and would , ot be .expected ta. increase I the ninifitude of any significant ProJ,'dct.-r , environmental effects identified In the SEIR. Ina number. of case ' s, the modifications to the Project Descri sch' p fion have, been .made to further reduce; potential environmental effects identified, in the SEIR., - The Petd1unia .,R'iver David Keller hoe, had no opportunity. to . address this with respect to; the changing Project Description and how it affects the SEIR The City Council is holding a.public hearing on 'the SEIR to provide 'an opportunity:. for comments related to the enviromnerItal evaluation of the Petaluma VillageLMarketplac I. The SEIR_ 'Fails , taInclude an Accurate, Stable and Finite Project Description The SEIR evaluates the project. as defined at the- time. the 'E61HIR and.FSEIR were prepared (Nbve,m,ber 2 and April 2003, . respectively),, *hJch consisted of - 173,400 square feet; of retail 8pa , Parcel 'B,' and' , a'10to 1'2 screen movie theater and 36,000's.quare feet pfreta'il. space�on Parcel_ C. Any �,n6di ficati oils thatliiay have been. made infthe .Project 'Description since, that time have.not bOeninc-orporatedin the SEIR. These -modifications include: L A reduction in the size of retail Paces on Parcel B to no more. "than 163, . square feet divided, into a. minimum Of two b6ildings. 2. Theinstallation of a. view "corridor between the "buf1dings on Parcel 13: throtgh which 'Vi:llage 'Drive was rerouted -to pass through, .3. The exteiisi Riverwalk to ast point of ;Parcel B. 4. asement irrevocable offer of dedication'by the Chelsea Grouo to the City f"' t a conserya ion,, over the triangular port on of Parcel B: sOuth of DeerCre,dk. 5.. A'ma•imum parking ratio ,on'parc6 I I Bof 5 spaces for every square feet .of retai space.. 6. An ;increase in the setback from the Petaluma River to a min'imu'm of" TOO; ufeet and where, practi 150 feet.. 7. A ,maximum 6f 81 square foetl.ofretail ;space' on Parcel G. t&' e divided between, Iwo separate buflding& to again Create a view :eorri'dor between he buildings;. The Planning Commission therifequesfed additional c.hanges which were reflected on the plans reviewed by theCbrft M_issionatlheir Decembef 9, 2003,.�ffie6ti'ng,as follows: I . The parking on Parcel R was reduced to a' 4 75,:1 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': the Petaluma River was increased"'to an average 'of '150.' for Parcel O and t e of the Petaluma ver Access e increased to a, minimum of 'both Capri and Deer Creeks W p q ° „ 'and Enhancement Pan. M 0 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 .r 1. environmental effects identifed���n the 'SEIR. In a number of cases thernQdificati the Project Description have been' made to further reduce potential environmental effects identi'fied 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 project" changes reducing the severity Q.. reporting CE Are ortm ro of environmental effects The cess; is not designed. to freeze the ultimate proposal p p J , indeed new and unforeseen insights may ro osal in the precise rnoad of the imt�al ro�ect• emer g e during rnvestr g g the oposal:" (Kings County Farm Bureau :supra, 221 Cal Appe 3d dt pp.v73673T ) A ap CE i c on pels dh inprocess teraetive pro of a t1 - n assessment of enviro P e, tal impact& and responsive project modifications which must be genuine. In short, a ro ect must be open for public discussion and subject to agency modification dunng the CEQA process'. (`Concerned Citizens;, of Costa Mesa, Inc. v.. 32' District Agric ultural Ass6ciati6m(l986) 42 Cal. 3d 936 [231 ,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 at pp., 1'040 - 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 thdESEIR. As noted on page 1 -36 of the Draft SEIR, + the project Will be subject to approvals. and permits from the U.. S. Army Corps of Engineers (US'ACOE ) ; , ; tfie U, S Fs rid Wildlife Service (USFWS), the California Department of Fish and; Game, ,(CDFG ) and•' the Regional Water Quality ;Control Board. , P.rior to the submission of applications. for permits from these agencies pre - .construction surveys will be required. The SEIR fails to provide a project description of the mature scope anti design of streambed alterations for "such Stream bed'Agreem en ts. Streambed Alteration Agree'ments,are negotiated between the tw6jnvolved parties (the project applicant and the California Department of Fish and Game) following completion of the appropriate level of environmental! review (in this case certification of'the S'EIR): Ne;. ther- the Final EIR nor. this proposed SEIR' include the changes in ,the 8:28 -acre abandoned railroad fight of way in their project description. The &BIR evaluates the Petaluma Village .Marketplace Project as shown iii REVISED DSEIR Figure 1 3 Project Site Plan on page C &R -363 of the FSE;IR; All development, proposed at the time of DSE1R publication (November 2002) .including any development proposed within the abandoned railroadright -of- -way, is evaluated i'n fhe.SEIR;. II The SEIR Fails to Adequately Describe the En.vironmental.Setting The SEIR' fails' in this regard' as it includes. 'no description of the . extent of the Petaluma River floodplain; nor afloodplain map: The SEIR contains an .extensive discussion of the Petaluma River floodplain {and related impacts. Local ,flooding- issues,, are addressed on pages 5 -1 L through 5 -1.6 of theo DS , 1R, and .Project- related effects associated with flooding ;are evaluated on pages 5 -20 through 5:;22 of the DS with, text modftfca:ti'onsT as indicated, in ; the FSEIR. Those portions of the .Project `site that are within the. floodp pin :of the Petaluma River and tributaries are shown in Figure .IV =B, -2: FEMA FLOOD, ZONE AND CROSS - SECTION; LOCATION MAP in RAF DT ENV IMPACT _REPORT: RIVER OAKS /PETALUM'A OUTLET' VILLAGE MASTER PLAN (March 19.90) and FSEIR Figure 2 Flood" ay and Floodpl'ain in the Vieinity=oFthe Project Site (Page C &R 4 . Tlie,SEIR's enviroomental setting,dlso, does. not include, anydescription: f, the, parcel on, tivhkh Village Drive is ,proposed to be located betm)een. tire- Petalww _River crossitig and - Petaluma Boulevard North. Without this information regarding 'the baseline physical conditions of the project, ;the EIR cannot :adequately inform. the City and the public of whether impacts will likely be significant. The FSEIR addresses the area through.,wlich the proposed Village Drive would pass ,or pages C &R -383 and C &R -3'84€ The proposed. Village Drive would pass through, the west mr . portion, of `the Noyes. Property •(04;8 = 142 - 013) between the Petaluma River -and; Petaluma Boulevard North. This vacant'�par..c.el is 'not owned 'b.y the ,Proj'ect Applicant, and an adequate :right -of -way for the proposed Village Drive. would need 'to be acquired. by the Project Applicant prior to:anybridge -arid roadway construction,: As shown in the.aerial photograph of;the Project :- site and vicinity (Draft Subsequent EIR, Figure 1.2 page 1 -3), there is limited vegetation. Along the western edge of the Noyes Property, and the construction of the proposed. roadway would not`be expected to entail adverse effects on sensifive biological resources. 'The cons_tructon of the proposed' roadway would not be inconsistent; with the adopted. plans :and, policies .of the.City of Petalurna,.and would not divide an existing community. The construction 'of the proposed roadway z would -:not; result in any population or employment growth, impede `:employrrient growth or result in housing; overcrowding. The proposed roadway would not expos'& people or'stru'ctures to potential substantial adverse 0. •, 0 geological effects (.e., earthquake fault rupture, strong seismmc 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 corrosi'vity to.levels of insignificant. Although a portion. of the proposed roadway is within the Petaluma ' River floodplain, compliance with the City's "Zero Net Fill" policy would be expected to reduce potential adverse effects ,associ'ated' with flooding (no portion',, of the proposed alignment through the Noyes Pro e y Riv floodway). Given the soil characteristics ' p p in 'h he arealc onstruction of thee ro osed roadway would not be expected to have a significant 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 Pohution'Prevention Plan on an on -going .basis, would be expected to reduce potential adverse, effects on water quality I to 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 been identified, 'that would reduce,, potential unacceptable levels of service at the intersection of'Village;''DriYe and Petaluma,,Boulevard North to,a level of less than s r fica ' nt. Implementation ofme' asures 'gn` p identified in- Draft' Subsequent EIR Chapter 8 o reduce • ossib � � A r - ld be : expected to re duce se a oqualu tion- relate t d,i quality effects wou p y impacts associated with roadway construction to a level of less than si ficant; and t 'gni' he; operation oftle proposed ,Village,1Drive would not result in any change irr the estimate. of Project-related regional. air pollutant emissions. Implementation lof 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 Pro' q g 9 - l) anticipated traffic along Project site (see Draft, Subse went EIR Ta61'e 9.3, pa e the proposed Village Drive J's not, expected, to generate' a' signif_cant increase in noise levels that would adversely affect sensitive receptors. The construction of the proposed roadway would not require the provision,of any additional police protection facilities, fire protection facilities school facilities, parks or recreational facAiti" s, water service, sewer service; 'telephone, service as and electric service or solid waste disposal: service. P g Although streetlights would,be installed: along the proposed roadway, the pavement itself I ould follow ,the. natural cor►tours of the property; and the: construction and operation of the proposed Village Drive would not be expected to have any si "gnificant adverse visual. or aesthet -ic effects. The vacant Noyes Property does not support any apparent historical resources, but compliance with the Recommended Actions identified on page 12 -3 of the archaeolo ical resources that are not, evident Draft Subsequent EIR could reduce, an potential ` adverseP effect on unknown . g' he site that may be disturbed during nstruction to a level of less than significant. at t co III.. Inadequate�.A'nalysis. ojSigtjifcaiit Adverse Enviroiinzetital lmpacts 5 The Impacts and Mitigation. section (Land Use and Planning Policy) fails to include theproper • ;level of analysis_ There is no discussion of the' facts and rationale regarding this project `s consistency with land use plans. Moreover, there Js„ no conclusion of the significance or insignificance of this project! The ,Council and the public are only i► formed that the project is "generally consis - tent. " This implies in one or nior e. undefined ways ,the project. is inconsistent with the Petaluma General Plan ( "GP'), 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 signifcdnt, this is a fatal onlission. As indicated in 'RESPONS.E ,0 =5 on FSEI'R page C &R4 23, in Chapter 2; the Draft'Subsequent EIR indicates: that the proposed Project,-is consistent with the approved River wks/Petalu na Factory Outlet Vi -page 1Vlaster Plan Program, is consistent; with the current. " Petatuma .General Plan land, use,designation; for the site, is consistent with the current zoning for the site and' 'is; generally cohsi °§tent with the General Plan "and Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan goals and policies., Decisions regarding ;Project consistency with approved plans and polices of the.City gf`Petaluma•ultimately rest with the'City Councit and not with the• preparers: of the Draft, Subsequent EIR: The pri EIR. determined ; that a minnium setback of 120 feet from ,tlae highway should 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 tharthe project is consistent with Policy 7 and that: the project does "not rise to the level of ` potential'' environmental 'impact. The SEIR offers rip analy' or _ discussion as to how• it.i-eached these conc-l'usions., The context for the discussion of the required setback from the, Highway is shown in the text, of Policy 7: 'The :area betas -.een the .Petaluma River and the W sr.§ide ;of Highway 161 :from Corona Road to the .railroad. right - of -w•ay 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 - scussing Policy 7 on page 2-9, the' SEIR states:. "The prior EIR. determined that „the .outlet Village; on Parcel.A, which,, included 2, Minimum' of l20 feet from the hi'ghway;-wouTd serve Policy 7,, and'that the Community Development Department should require a _similar buffer or"setback for the development of Parcel B and Parcel C.” Policy does,not establish a'setback requirement, and the Pi=oject site,is';now zoned for "Special Commercial ",. and, not industrial uses. Thel City Council will ultimately determine the whether or not the proposed 100 -foot setback__ would's:erve Policy 7 The.,prior EIR..:cletermined ,that,requiring floor elevations to be above the 100 -year. flood plain would assure consistency, Of'the,proyectM with . Pol "T- However, 'we now know .that the° floor elevations were off. See Comment .JJ 1'8 at ,p. CR209: The consistency determination does not take ihis� information into account. Fu,rther,� there is. nb;detertninat on, of siggifkcancer, Policy 7: The City.shall regulate land isesJn flood ,prone areas and should allow development' ifi . those areas only with appropriate mitigation: .6 . As indicated in RE JJ48 on: FSEIR pages G &R -263 and C &R =264, 'Uncertainty is inevitable .in, the prediction' , of flood conditions, and can only be addressed by conservative assumptions and . the incorporation of safety factors in planning: new development. New in will always be .developing that may change our understanding of flood conditions." Policy 7 does not setispecifie requirements for flood mitigation, and the City determine what is appropriate mitigation for' each project that may be proposed in a'flood -prone area. The City Council will ultimately deter rn -me whether the .floor elevation 's proposed at the Project site represent appropnatemitigaton consistent with Policy 7. Tire. SEIR determines that the project is ,consistent despite ackri'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 DSEIRpages 2 -24 and 2 -25. River Oriented'Developinent'Z'one Policy'24 on Page 81 of the PRAEP states that' the number of ,roads and bridges across the river should be minimized. It further estates, ``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 ass throu h Restorati on p g ; Preservato n and Buffe "r Zones." PRAEP Programs 24a and 24b on the same page, state that road, bndg'es should be 10cated in places' of least habitat sensitivity and where ;:damage to existing habitat is unavoidable due to bridge construction, damages should be ni :tigateds to the extent feasible'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 t_he north and south , of the proposed crossing within the designated protection zone. ,Development of the proposed bridge in. area would be required to comply with the Supplemental Guidelines of the PRAEP. The SEIR does not adequately analyze the potential significant h0pacts of farmland conversion. The SEIR reveals that there may be interference" with agriculture, but' not "to such an extent that :itwbidd create. pressure: to converl." However, elsewhere the!:SEIR states that "over time, theon- going, conversion , would 6e to permanently change: the existing visual character ofrural Petaluma.' The adjacent livestockyard is an i te - 1 piece of agricultural infrastructure, and its 'loss will have. curnulat ive impact on farm land ''conversion Iheoug'hout th'e, region. CEQA 'requires , .c u gn�can a impa�t fromfarmland conversion. l Further, �SEIR offers no conclusion as to whether there will be a As indicated o D.SEIR page 2 -26 the significance criteria ;for Project- related effects associated with the conversion of agricultural land .relate to Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland of Farmland of. Statewide Importance.. Nor portion of the Project site has been designated as Prime Farmland, Unique 'Farmland or Farmland. of Statewide Importance,. and' as indicated on DSElR page 2 -27, the Project would. not,tesul,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 pressure o convert these act-i rations in the vicinity to such an extent that ities to non-agricultural al use - would create with on-going a ricultural operations P g s. Potential conflicts with on -going agricultural operations are more commonly .associated with adjacent residential "development, •,. rather than with adjacent commercial d'evelo • 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;', th'e, proposed, conversion of two ;vacanf parcels to commercial use would contribute to a curnulatrve, :reduction in. the number of "open," areas . current_l.y, seen b:y lhose traveling .along ,the'U:S:, 1041 corridor in the Petaluma area:. Overtime the on -going .conversion of additional, sites ihi. 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'taluma. ",As this, paragraph dea'lsulely w,ith, changes, in the visual character of lands along U.S. 101, nothing in this paragraph is related to conversion of agricultural land, or,possible effects on agricultural uses within the region. The SEIR fails 'to analyze compliance of the proposed project with all" applicable,land use plans; policies' and regulations 'of other agencies with jurisdiction: over the project;, ncluding the Califor,•n a Department. of Fish and Game the, US. Fish and Wildlife- ,Service, the U.S. Army . C PT ps of Engineers, Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Regional'. Water ,Quality Control Board. Project compliance, with the regulatory requirements' of ,these ,agenicies is addressed in. ,DS'EIR p Hydrology, g Q y rp gy (fort Coips, of En " y _. ters on. H drolo Draina e Water. uahf. , and' �Geomo bolo -for U.S Arm ch apters Federal Emergenc y Management Agency and Regional Water Quality Contrdl Board) and Biological Resources (for California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish, and Wildlife Service and U.S'. Arrny.Corps of Engineers). .T11e SEIR fails to analyze compliance with Conditions 51_52, 54 and 55' of Resolution 91=136,.. which are clearly applicable land use.regulatons. These,, conditions, are addressed on pages 1,5 through• 1 -8 of the DSEIR. As ind_ icated on pSEIR page 1 -7,. "The current application is intended to comply with the, requi'rcments set forth in, Condition Number 51; Condition Number 52,,. Number 53,; Condition Number 54 and. Condition. Number ,55.7 The City Council will ultimately determine the whether the Project: complies with these conditions. The failure to analyze; compliance with each of th&above pis: d,proeedural violation of 'CEQA... Each of Ihe issues xa.'ised.above 'have been addressed' in the As indicated, on FSEIR, page C &R 72 "CEQA does .not, require; technical; perfection in an EIk, .but `rather adequacy completeness, and a good- faith effort. at full disclosure. A court ,does, not pass upon the correctness-of an EIR's;.environmental conclusions, but only determines if the EIR's suffi'ci'ent as an 'informational document ". • 0 Hydrologic Impact Analysis Flaws The. in the flood ni i dnce 9 tt&i,a is awed as it doesn''t recd 4 nrz��as a sr °nificant impact inconsistency g f � .� g g st'be two feet above the 1�00� ea'r ood�'elewatioevation ,oi construction' flood plain with thel Cat s.re utrement that finished floor,e new mu y n As indicated on DSEIR page 5 -18,,. the significance criteria used in_ the SEIR analysis of hydrologic, drainage, water. �quality' or geomorphic impacts .arei derived from standard engineering practice; 'CEQA .Guidelines, and the .floodplain development requirements of both. the City of Petaluma and FE MA. The DSE°IR,. states on page 5 =22 (Footnote 1): "The design finished floor elevations are.at least four feet above the current. FEMA base "flood elevation (see Table 5 -6):" The analysis of flooding, °impacts 'is° flawed, as, '' is ,now evidence ,before the City that the nod ele flor levatiofi or'new con p f finished fl f struchon m. °the jlood lam is not two eet, above the 100 - year N f The November 2002 D,SEIR :used the rma most current info �avaiilable, at the time of publication-, and states on page 5. -22. (Footnote I): "The design finished floor elevations are at least four feet above the current FEMA 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,. r-a[her..than' .on the Petaluma floodplain. '.,'_.the are such that site Project site's Iocatro'n and size in .relation to the Petaluma River ern D e SIR e � d p `a g e 5 ] 9, hasis add" ( em p ) will peak far earlier than '' the Petaluma River at This and thus have a negligible effect ion 'peak flows in the river. Only a small fraction. of'the runoff from the site will contribute to 1 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 1.00 7year peak runoff rate due to the Project does not represent a significant impact to flood' conditions in Petaluma River." There is no analysis; of the hydrologic ithpacts: of the detention basin to be constrticted in the northeast corner',of Parcel.'C The design, for the proposedu detention basin has not been finalized, but" the, revised. Mitigation Measure on FSEIR ppa'ge, R-1 „6 provides additional detail�on "the funcrional requirements thai' °the basin would be'requiredto �nteet: Mitigation Measure 5.2.1!: Detention Basin on Parcel C. A:deten'tion basin is. planned for the Project site on'the northwestern edge of Parcel C,.adjacentlo Corona Creek. The primary 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-year,' 24 -h6ur stone or an 9 I - nw - n, alternat've�,ston dter,qualit.V desjgn ston as acceptable to, the� Reg orial Water Qualit Control Board. It will also , be-consistent with ,the degi criteria • for Extended (Dry) Detention Basins sgecified in Start, at the. Source .(B _1999) (personal , communication,- Wayne Leach, C desi SW:St'). These crite 'a include. the following: an vertical, &nerj48 at, the inlet, `a; for for .initial settling .;minimal pond, area with _depths less, , than-'18' inches to discourage rn squito reproduction, : and d regular maintenance schedule: -There is no analysis of the hydrologic iq7pacts . of the new Village Drive .which, will cross -the Peialuma,R iyer-.` The FSEIR. add the area ftough•whic'h the. proposed Village : Drive would passion pages C&R-393 'and C&R484, and includes, the fol , lbwinglsfiqternent related to and water ,quality issues;. Aftho ugh a portion of the proposed: roadway is withim - Petaluma.Riv e floodplain, v ay I I., hi n: withthe City's "Zero Net Fill" policy would tie �e'xpe&fed to reduce potential adverse eff&cls associated with flooding (no ali through portion of the proposed u the Noyes 'Property would be withih the Petaluma River floodway 'Given the soil' characteristics - in the area 'construction oi'fhe proposed roadway - woul d not be ex'pected, to have a siknl�fjcarit effect 'on groundwater recharge; -Or any .adverse; -,effects On, groundwater resources. - Compliances'' with Best Management Practices durin i a. ti 9, construction, and with-the measures identified in.,a Stormwater Polluticlh,Ptevention Plan on -go I ing .�basis, -would be', an on to reduce; potential adverse effects .on Water quality , toa level of less than,signifIcant. Biological: RJesourc.es,l . nipact Analysis Flaws The -SEIR' vidlates, Resoltition 91-136 which ri? environmenta environment 1 review qfP-Orcels A and Clo provide analysis .of In e f i Dactsf needed to.,minimize, adverse impacts to CaprECreek, the Petaluma, River and .other' natural physicalfieatu_res, 4nem,aing habitat, seasonal wetlands and freshwater marsh. , Project-relaIed impacts to,seasonalwetlands and n" afiaahabitat are addressed, on DSEIR pages p 6-25 and, 6-26. Emergent marsh at the, I Project -- site i addressed on.D&EIR page 6-3, and no Project= related.irhpact tolhek areas was identified. The,,SVIR fails to 4scyss & lut act. to. rare, plan t despite the, requirem ent ��f heso ion9l-.136that , d survey for , such , Pja'nts'be undertaken. As on DSEIR,page 6-6,,no specialistatus plant spqcIes were observed during; surveys conducted in the Project area. in 1997. 1 • J The 'SEIR failed t present 'on:,the site; including the q anq yzet impacts to .all of,, the "I'd ite,t o f the be i.;.,offish a"d��6dihe. pittai 0 P hecomnients o See RESPONA F-4,pri FS-EIR pages C&R-67 and:'C&R-168 -f6r discussion of the ; Sacramento splittall and -potential Projoct-.related impacts to this . species. Splittall are . presently. found t rimarily in the Delta. Sui�$un,,'B_ ay, Suisun 'Marsh, Napa P bri), Ri ver, Petaluma a and other parts of the 'Sacramento -San - Joaquin est ,Sampling 'by Q-DFG .between J_992 and' 1098.hd§ shown that splittail have continuously lived in the Petaluma River - since the ' 1980's and have successfully spawned 4n' 1992,, 199 and 1998'. 'This species was also :;captured during ,construction of the PoialUrria Flood''Control project- however it was likely that.its� presence 'was ` a 0 1 J result of high tides and. flow rather, than active 'use , of'h'abitat.: Sacramento splittall.have been known to use habitat downstream of the'Proj ect, site: spawning, partic."ularly in'areas closer to San Francisco Bay. In" stream construction may impact spawning or rearing individuals through increased turbidity, s iltation, or "doss of habitat.. Howe'er,� implementation pnialion - of the measures Y F 1 1 , discussed in the Construction of Villai�e'Pnve Bridge section' bfthe Subsequent EfR's Project. Descrition (Cha ter 2,,see p REVISIONS� to page 1 16) *oulaitreduce :potential adverse -pt , 'I effects to a level of less than significant. Traffic and Circulation Impacts Analysis Flaws. Parcel A has 962 parking.spaces. Parcel, B is projected to have 527 '' arking spaces and Parcel C p • 923 parking spaces.. The SEIR ails io the impact.oftrdfliic circulation'within and among the mall parking lo& Internal circulation at the��Prqj site was evaluated l5yW-Transfi th,eEIR, and is addressed on DSEIR page� 7-2 �afidce o parki ,,74'128 whei6i it that the �'�r6pbs6,d §1,te lanorovidbsadequateon- site circulation and ac ri �d i i g, , and n locati The SEIR'Jails to analyze trdfOc impacts of the new Village Drive Which will - cross Petaluma River. The HEIR addresses the area , thtotigh which the proposed Village Drive would.pass on pages C&R-383 ,and C&R-3,84, which includes the following statement: The. traffic analysis presented in Chapter I of the Dta:ft Subseque . nt EIR has been conducted taking th S' I count; and mitigation has been 0 ,pT.opo ed Village 'Dnve into ac identitie that'would reduce potential unacce 't' �srvice at the intersection , of p.ab le levels.of e Villa' Dn and Peial'uma Boulevard North to a level,of less_ than. sign`iiieant. The SEI# fails _to c resolution 91-136, Condition 51. (E),�-'s requirement that specific, area wide traffic impacts associated with projects on B & C'shall be identified concurrent with the environmental analysis of the specific project. Traffic impacts'associa'ted with- the proposed Project (the development of Parcel B and Parcel C) •. are evaluated ,in DSEIR pages '714 through 7-27. The SEIR fails. to - comply, with Resolution 91436,, Condition .51 (E) uirem.ent that, trafijic analysis for Pail lu of the potential B and C shall include evaluat -e to yequire shared parking with Parcel A and the. potential need of prior completion, of the-,eastlWest - - passlintercheii7g,,&, prior ,t6 The leveL of.,parking to,'be ,,prov.,Ided on Parcel B and Parcel Cis sufficient to support th e uses pjoposed-,ori parcels, and. does, not require- shared parking agre wfth,'Parcel A. As , indicated on DS.EIR pages 7-171 and 7-25 the completion of a new east-'West cfoss! town connector, 6hd 10.1 interchange would tnitigate operational, impacts ,at Petaluma Boulevard' N. brth/ I Was hingwift-Street toAevels that are less than.sIgnific'ant. lh the absence 6f connector, ,however 'a 'significant cumulative , impact would. be expected to occur at this intersection either with or Wiiho'ut:the - ,proposed Project. The ,SEIR does not nc-l_ude discussion of,'co.iiinliance,with.,Resolution 91-136, Condition 54. The 15 intersections evaluated in the SEIR were selected to, provide a comprehensive understanding of 'Project - related traffic 'impac'ts; i II , th e vicinity of 'the Project site' given tucurrent nt trii:ffic.,conditiotis, consistent with the intent of Condition 'Number 54 from ,Resolution " 1'36. Failure to Analyze ; the Whale of the Project The SEIR .and 1990 . PIR, have failed to analyze, the whole of the project abandQneid eight of way has not heen',subjoq to CEQ analysis as part o,-�.the ]��PO lot Final EIR prop osed 'SEIR.. Significant :vegetation was lost, a riparian I area 'was filled, and"a wetlands corridor and wetlands acreage were lost. Similarly, the SEIRja to include andlysis ,6fithe impacts from. development of the parcel an which Village',Drivel 4s- be located between the Petaluma River crossing , and ,-Petaldifid, Blvd. North.. The SEIR evaluates the Peldlurna Village Marketplade Project as shown in REVjSE0,V.S,EIR Figure 1.3:�Pr page C &R-3'63 :of the FSEM.Al;l development ,p p at 'the time of DSEIR publ ication. (November 2002), including any development"propoised. , within . the ab'ndoned.railroad right-of-way, is -evaluated in the SEIR. The, FSEIR,. addresses - the area,, through which the propose I' q'y Drive would pass on pages G&R-3 8.3 and C&k-3'84.' Fail,uee Analyze :Indirect Impacts ysis The.-SEIR'fails to,include,ana , 9fth environmental impacts of-the demis'e of local downtown businesses as a result of the.pr6pos'&d pr inctuding acts to downtown /Central , _Tp Petaluma lrqf�ie.and circulation, urban Might!, abandonment and decay of the; central -city and other commercial are e�mpjqymeqr, emergency and policy services. Under CEQA,• " 'direct and indirect, significant effiects of the project 06 the, environment shall be clear�yjdentifped and described, giving due; consideration to both the. short teiwin =d long-terv e ' T h e discussi ,should include, 1releyan.t , specifics of die' area, ffi'e resources involved,' the physical changes, alt . eratioik"o ecologic Systems, and changes induced ,in population, istribution, pgpulatibn concentration, the human use of the - land (ificludihgl co' and .residential development); ,health and safety problems caused by the physical changes and other aspeets;qf the res �1d j I• I I base such as water, historic - resources, , scenic quality, and pu'blic`servic'es. " The SEIR has failed to meet these reauireinents: As indicated on' FSEIR RESPONSE OL3 (page C &R 1:22) The Draft Subsequent Environmental Impact Report does "not evaluate the economic impacts that may be associated with the development`: of the Project site,aas proposed (�.e., the use of'Cty redevelopment funds, competition between unidentified future tenants at the 'Project site and existing ,retailers `in downtown Petaluma and elsewhere, etc:,); Although, economic considerations: may be important in any City decision on the proposed Project , should; be addressed prior to action on the proposed Project, under CE� A such economic issues are beyond ;the scope.of an Environmental "P J Q k Impact Report, as they do not relate directly to physical changes in °the environment. Failure to Identify All Unavoidable The SEIR failed to identify; Seismic Hazards as unavoidable, despite concluding that even after mitigation they will be potentially significant. The' ,SEIR also d no[, .,analyze all significant impacts identified by the 1-990• EIR for Parcel.A where mitigations were never implemented and thus the impacts are unavoidable. The' 1990 EIR evaluated,seismic' hazards . and " nclud ed the ;following, statement with :respect to mitigating seismic hazards' (see DSEIIZ pages 4 -4 And 4,, -5;): "These ate considered. to remain t. potentially significant because although the mitigations pro are standard,' acceptable p po sed approaches to reducing the s� if nce pp g gn ica of impacts, there is no way to entirely reduce the ' potential for adverse impact. "The EIR preparer "s do not consider these impacts to be included in the City's statement of`ovemding considerations, however, but recommend that they be handled through the Mitigation Monitoring program for thin 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 senst'v,e area such as Petaluma may be, subject to adverse !impacts during a major seismic event, compliance with current Bui'lding'Code requirements can be expected to reduce the, potential .for these impacts 'to an. acceptable level. - The SEIR evaluates the Project as proposed (the development of Parcel B and Parcel C), and does not address' environmental' impacts or mitigation measures associated with the previous development of'Parcel A. The SEIR, Fails to Adequately Analyze Cumulative Impacts The SEIR summarily concludes, without discussion, that no cumulative impacts are expected "in combination with otherz pending development applications that - could cause si ni icant ® population, housing or employment impacts. This conclusion is flawed for at least't'hree reasons: 13 1. 'An EIR .must ° provide analysis - not,s mplj� unsupported conclusion's; only thus may it • serve its intended put pose; of iriforniing.Petaluma decision- makers and the public.. ?. By only considering "pending" development. applications the SEIR necessarily sloes not analyze the `'change. in the environment. resultingu from the project when: added to past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects. "Pending' de velopment applications certainly, do not include past projects. Aloreo.uer there is no case law or CEQ.4,guidelirie which so narrowly. restricts . . reasonably foreseeable projects `` to ' pending" development applications. Despite 'dial the public, including' David Keller, apprized Chelsea of numerous reasonably foreseeable projects in comments ors the Dr aft :SEIR, no adequate cuthula"tive iinpact analysis has been conducted. 3.. The limitation to ''significant `' population housing or employment impacts ,contradicts ,the CEQA :mandate that a cum'u'lative impact. analysis. considers "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' ,exceed the development allowed in the General Plan,, "there would; be no change in cumulative impacts associated with proposed p? o'ect ,that have not;been considered in the environmental revaluation: of the General Plan. ,This' -too is flawed. As .diseussed, ,above such conclusooy, statements avoid the required 'analvsis .of past,. present and reasonably foreseeable pr..ojects ,Even if the "amount and intensity:" of development had not been 'exceeded, this does not ,mean, ipso facto 'that the impacts are - equij' each development. has its own .unique •' footprint'and design which were not known when 'the General ,Plan EIR :was cer, tifced and which may also affect ; potential environmental impacts. Further the purpose of a, General .Plant .EIR; is to e,'valuata the.;iinpacts of-the land use constitution. then adopted. Mere conformity "with a. generaY: plan; m ;and of itself will not justify a f riding that, the project has no s gnif eanrenvironmental effects.. Neither `the. General EIR on its face nor.;`the City at the time of certification intended for that EIR. to.supplan "t he analysis required, lin, EIRs. for specific projects. Neither the General Plan EIR or the 1990'.EIR for:Parcel A- adequately addressed the regional and areawide cumulative impacts of the proposed 4Petaluma Village Marketplace project. Notably, .projects are foreseeable now which' not have been reasonably foreseeable artbe,ttme -of certification 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: where .related to flooding-.issues. traffic c and a . r 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 Ho,vever,.potenti'al Project- specific cumulati a im acts associated with floodin , traffic and ai General Plan buitdout which would, includes ecial commercial develo ment at the Project site P g r . quality received considerable attention'in the relevant chapters of the DSE1R. At; the: tine he DSEIR was' published, CEQA Guidelines 'defined "probable future projects in Section ,15'130' (,b) (1) (B) [1'] as follows; "Probable future projects" maybe lirni'ted those projects requiring an agency approval for an app icatonw,hich. has been received at the tirne the 14 l r notice of preparation. Is . released unless abandoned by the applicant; projects included in an adopted capital im:provenients program general, plan, regional transportation plan, or other similar plan; .,projects included in a summary' of proj desi a "ted lm ections of projects .(or development areas p p gn ' ( g a general, plan or a si) ilar plan; prc�ects.anticipated as later phase of . 'a previously ` approved ro'ect e. . a subdivision. or those public agency p sect's fo which money has been .budgeted:" In the current ,GEQA Guidelines discussion � of Section' 15130; if ,staie's: "When required to discuss not onl g a projects construct on`and a ' the Lead Agency is anal zin � the �cumul�at•ive I proved a of p a � project under 151'30 b� „ pproved related projects not.yet under construct1on,,`but also unapproved projecls current under environmental review With related 'impacts or which result in signif cant cumulative impacts." The inclusion of possible future development proposals that may have received sorne:media attention at the time of NOP issuance, but that have not been forrrially 'submitted to_the City for review or environmental evaluation would lead to speculation in developing , the'cumu at ve analysis of the proposed Project. As indicated in RESPONSE- 0=4 on FSEIR pages "C &R -122 and C &R -123'; The cumulative analysis presented in the Draft EIR was based on "the traffic conditions anticipated to resent in the y ear 2015 ' j mu'l be p ect- related cuat'ive traffic 'impacts); -and on the assumed ( for Pro completion of two projects in the vicinity of the Project. site °that had.,been formally submitted to the was distnbuted Red review when 'the ro`Pre ar' ' q p f' a" tion for the Draft Subse uent` EIR Y P ( _dwood Technology once r ject, and theoon- going U.S. Army Corps of Engineers `flood control project). �I then development projects that have been formally submitted reflected in the Draft Subseication'�of the Draft • Subse i EMIR' in November; 2002 - are not Y P uen q q.0 t. 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- 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 significant:, Th s the SEIR' does not comply q the ,discussion °'of impacts with CEQA Guideline Section 15130 which re" uires that . cumulative not refl t nt e tcant j l the SEIR m'sres.uired he hoodof occurrence. ,If the' cumulative impact is y l P r likelt 1 d . 6 brort icate why the cumulat .ve impact is not g - ire ' '' ac 9 to that conclusion; g . si ni scant, rdenti ls��and�ana _.IY g'f Y �' " PP" g Under to h der thetttlea , oes P P f utur" � act discussion. 7 d traffic. e conditions the SEIR reveals• that the Level Service criteria were a pp lied to 4 scenarios, What is nusstng °is 'examtnattonof past plu °present plus f +ttlre projects. Indeed; the modeling which , {ncluded' undisclosed. historical tr was replaced, apparently because the model yielded results characterized only as unstable. 15 Also because the SEIR does not what projects'" the calculation of ",future • t, aff c anticipated for .201 S. ", it is impossible, to kilOw, if all `reasonahly f oreseeable pr ject, ' were included as required :by CEQA. It cey`tainly, appears not; elsewhere the SEIR states `that only two projects were inctuded'in the cumulative analysis — the'Redtivood`Technology Park ,and a downstream; flood control project.. ,As discussed infra, there are numerous :reasonable. foreseeable projects yin; addition to these two., Thus: the cumulative traff e 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 text of'the .relevant portions of..'Chapter 5, .to cumulative cover traffic impactsin detail. In terms of Project- rebated traffic impacts, the Project would contribute to cumulative impacts where 'the ,level' of service` at a particular 'intersection.,eva'luated would decline below acceptable levels either with or without the Pr 'oj.eci: The intersection of Petaluma Boulevard ro g the Pro ect would. contnbutdIo his significant cumulative impact (Impact 7.1 North/,Washm ton Street would operate ,at unacceptable levels of service in the absence of the_ P ject, wherefore, . j . gn _ P ,_. gn' ) dRedwood Highway segment is d pro)ected l toc t ue n'operat n-g at le el of service even without the, Project;wherefore, the Project Would coniribute significant .cumul:ative,•impact 7.2 and :7 7; identified' as signif cant and unavoidable in the DSEIR). Other impacts !addressed on. DSEIR pages 7 -23 through- 7 -26 -are evaluated.under the heading "Future Plus` - Projects. Conditions (Cumulative) and these would also be considered signiicant.cumulative impacts ,to which the proposed,Project contribute traffic. In the traffic analysis, all revious develo merit " " ast conditions is included in.'the traffic Y P P (.P ) model under Existin , Cond`` ' " g tons.. As indicated on DSEIR page -T_, 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 discussion of future traffic projections, applied. ' raff c growth assumptions; and the ' con'sideration 'of specific development pro_ posals), The DSEIR presents the results of the modeling conducted, and mo earli:er,modeli "ng was "replaced". Chapter 7 concludes that the 'future plus project conditions" resu rin,potentially.ighifcant impacts to.3 intersections and 1 roadway City and the public, deprived of a proper and full cumulative traffic impact; have not been informed if "the LPS for these intersections /roadway, would , :degrade further or if there are dtheri intersections and 'i=oadwa <•s which also would be significantly impacted: ,Iii addition, as discussed infra without the requisite :analysis cu mulati ve.. impacts,. the. E1R cannot have adequately discussed mitigations for such iinpa 'ts., Project ; related traffic;impacts are addressed at: length on DSEIR pages 7 -1.2' through 7 .2;7. The tables° provided In Chapter I provide; the reader with ;an accurate assessment of anticipated traffic levels of service::af each. of 'the I1 intersections evaluated for the DSEIR based on the results of the traffic modeling conducted. 16 4 q , y Cumulative Aesthetic Iinpact Analysis Flaws The , SEIR states that -the project would. ''contribute to 'a cumulative reduction in the number of open areas currently seem by those traveling' along the 1:01 corridor: "Over 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 Ca, n'cil whether the impact' is significant, and thus fails to comply. 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 -discusses the individual aesthetic impacts of the project and ;concludes that there is' a sigrtfi.cahf1impaet from 1) loss of scenic resources, 2) degradation of 'visual' character and 3) "i' ligftglare and then recommends mitigation measures, On DSEIR page 13 " -5, ' :the last paragraph, reads, as follows:• "Although the General Plan anticipates development at the'p Project; site, the proposed conversion of two vacant parcels to b co commercial use would contri bute ,to a cumulativew reduction in the ,namber' of "open" areas currently seen Y those tray.,efin g 'the`U.S. 101 . alon g' m or•in the'{Petaluma, area. Over tune, the g g his corridor which . currently provide "open" visual on- oin conversion of additional sites in '.t features would be expected' to permanently change the existing visual character of what has long been perceived (emphasis;' added) as a Tura] 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 relati 'Ve,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 significantcumulat 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' change in the environ'nient resulting from the project when added to past, present; and reasonably foreseeable pro�ectx "The only other identified project considered ,in 'this cumulati;ve,analysis is the "Redwood' Technology Center. ",,Thus, the SEIR 's cumulative zin dct anal sis.'on'ly considered i "two ro P y p jects ". There is no consideration of 1) any past fo'odpla pro 2 , ) other, exist ng ents�or 3) any reasonabt r oreseeable f uture " cts other e YI j P J than the Redwood Tech Park: The SEIR remarkably even ignores the ArMy Corps downstream food control project;, despite, - describing future projects for Pill of cumulative impacts as including this f ood, "project. The SEIR did riot consider the: cumulative hydrologic impacts despite .acknowledging highway commercial uses to ,the.4mmediate 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 rectsonab, le' foreseeable. projects which were not considered as discussed fully • below. 17 s� . CEQ:A does not permit a corzstraitred cumulative impact analysis of regional impacts. "Because . of the proxtnuty of the .Project site lo }he. Pet aluma River hydrologic issues are of primary importance - to the Project SEIR" validit r: The SEIR :'s flooding model considered the Petaluma: River downstreafil of Willow Brook; through Peta.'Iumal River, upstream of LYnch Creek. ,Ho:wever, no analysis of cumulattve'.,impact of past, present a`nd reasonable foreseeable° projects located, even within this .hniited stretch of the Petaluma River was included' in: this SEIR. In: Kings County farm Bureau' v:. 'City of Hanford, the Court set aside an EIR which failed' to consider the ;entire air ; basin in it cumulative impacts analysis.. So here, this SEIR is flawed for .taking such a constrained approach to cumulative hydrologic impacts which - i's of particular. concern,given the inewttability, of flooding in the PetdAti `ia River floodpldin. Second; the SEIR fails to consider the cumulative effect o f flooding on the. Petaluma River when combined with its three tributaries which r"un'through the, proposed project ``In addition ao the Petaluma' River.-, several smaller -„ 1triL utary streams 'traverse the Project site All three �J streams drain under Highway IOI 'ih.rough culverts -o the. Project site," and discharge ; the Petaluma River.'" Third the SEIR completely. 'avoids a; curnulati:ve '`,water quality analysis. The SEIR impermissibly assumes without any supporting data or analysis that with the proposed water: quality mi6 tion, for each i - dividuat project in place, no "stgniftcant. cum ulative water quality impacts would result from the` , wo` projects. However under CEQA the' required a impacts otherm ot i mpacts may fwtll be the 'SEIR doe that whatever _ pp p p J - y g even mention. Redwood ,Technology Park mitigations :upon which; it relies. An adequate cumul"'' a impact analysis would `avoid ,such 'unsupported conclusions of insignif cance and consider all past; ,present and foreseeable projects as discussed above. Although,, the DSEIR does not provide a listing of 191 structures, 'roadways or,pther,man made objects that currently exist within the Petaluma,kiwer loodplain, the en odelifig conducted for°the ,evaluation o,f ;Project- related hydrology impacts took into account all' existing; development within the study area in developing th__e, baseline values (pre - Project). As indicated. above the DSEIR. 'limited the "reasonably foreseeable. projects to those either underway at the fi'= of NOR issuance,(the;USACOE ` flood : contro),project) for-which the City had a "formal development application, at the time of 'NOP iissuarice (Redwood, Technology Par #low. from all tributaries to the Petaluma River is also taken into:acco.unt in the modeling. The DSEIR: analysis of - -flooding effects by 'its- very nature; provides discussion in terms of the cumulative context, ; as , that -is how the modeling generates: °Project= related changes in current flow rates and water surface elevations Although all of 'the specific: measures I to protect water quality that would be included in flue required SWPPP had not 'been identified for either -the., Project or the Redwood; Technology Center at the time 'o;f DSEIR publication (November 2002), the ,types of measures ;commonly, included'. in. SWPPP are, described in Start at the Source and, other quality publi approval ' an S -WPPP that, incorporates cations, and pp , .. rp such measures R res by WQCB signifies that this regulatory N agency b elieves hat the effeptli im p I lementati6n of the S*WP;PP would reduce potential water t: e� I' quality impacts to a: level of less 'than slijgffificant. Cumulative Biological Resources Impact, Analysis Flaws Astonishingly, the SEIR ''has no analysis of the cumulative impact. of this project 1_0 biological resources. A thorough cumulative impactY, is pqrticklarlv important here because of the substantial evidence of impacts,firom� the project alone; Eight significant adverse impacts from the project are identified. iii respect loss of seasonal, wetlands, riparian habitat, pond turtles, red - 'legged frogs, nesting yellow. warblers, nesting northern harriers, nesting white-tailed kites and'degraidation of water qu,al(tyy. Yet" here there i . s not even any mention of cumulative impacts d I or imp cts from past, present and future projects. THE DSEIR di.scussio.R of ispe6al'status species covers., ' th ' . ose potentially occurring in the Project vicinity based on habitat'requirpments, based on a - records. search of ihe' C DFG NDDB in June 2000 and the Jones Stokes Associates; . ates, studies of the Project area in, 1.997 (see DSEIR pages6- 6 through 6-23). Plants and anirnals, that have been formally designated "special status - species" have been given protected status ' due largely to cumulative , , damage Ao their preferred habitats. For this reason, any Project- relate impact; to these species or their habitat could also be regarded as acumulati've impact, d1though,not identified §uch,'In the SEIR.; In addition, the SEIR has not analyzed the cumulative' "impact to biological resources Of �7 developing Parcels B and 'in the ` content of development of.,,the 'abandoned railroad right of way and of Parcel A. Signifiicant vegetation on was lost a riparian .area was filled, a wetlands corridor and wetlands acreage we r . e lost with the' development Of develop the abandoned railroad right- of-way. The SEIR evalaes eePlanilgg Marketpjs in REVISED DSEIR Figure 1.1 Proj Sion m page C&R-363 of the FSEIR. All dev elop proposed at the time of DSEIR publication (November 2002), including any dgvp,l opment within the abandoned railtoad'right-of-wayJs evaluated in the SEIR. 'The ex . sting conditions discussions presented-i L n 1h6varioa& - chapters of the DSEIR are based conditions as they existed'-when the lon of a Draft Subsequent Notice, of Preparation EIR was circulated in, July 2002, and any ,habitat modifications or ;othef changes 'in ,bidlQgical resources that may have occurred within the abandoned railroad, riight-of-wayyprior to that: time would not now be; regarded as having -an, �y Project-related " associated With the develo,pmdnt of Parcel B' .and Parcel C ascurrently proposed. Failure to C6mpIY'Wdhi,CEQA Guidelines,Section 15130 The SEIR: discussion jaz ; ls!16,40clude either I) a list of past, present and probable future projects producing r'ela't e cumull tive impacts, including those projects ,outside ,the , control of the City, or 2) a summary of prqjections contained in an adopted'gen0al plan or related pla 19 document; or in a prior- environmental document which has been adopted 'or cent f ed; which . describes or evaluated ,regional or- aeeci; vide conditions contributing to the' cumulative impact., Further, the. SEIR fails to define the :geographic ,scope of the area affected by ,the cumulative effects at?d fails to provide a z-easonable .explanation. for this geographic limitation. As indicated in FSEIR RESPONSE 0 7 4, the ,cumulative analysis presented in the Draft 'Sub:se.quent EIR was based on the assumed_ completion. of two. projects in 'the vicinity of the Project site that had °been formallysubmitted to the City'o'f Petaluma'for review when the Notice of Preparation, .for the Draft Subsequent: EIR was distributed (the Redwood Technology Center project, and the on- :going U.S;. Army Corps of Engineers flood control project), Other development protects been •foemally submitted,'for City review since publication,mof the Draft Subsequent EIR in November •2002.. are .,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 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. Figure 1.2 Aerial Photograph of 'Pro`ec:t Site` and Vicinity (DSEIR page d- 3) ;provi'des a; of'the:area surroundifig,the Project site, although the, DSEIR traffic .analysis evaluated Project- related traffic; impacts 'at a. number of intersections beyond area shown in this figure. In terms; of identifying the geographic •limits of cumulative impacts, much depends on the type of impacts considered,,.as, some 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 •geographic .boundaries ` beyond which Project- related curriulatiwe environmental impacts, were not considered were not identified iri the SEIR. Failure to Adequately Analyze the ' CuWulative .Anpact.of Past Projects The also acknowledges that it has excluded the most important past project — •the development A — the existing_ 19.5,000'square foot factory mull development. The,SE-tR 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 incremental impacts of past projects' while acknowledging such development projects ex` st;in. the immediate surroundings. .(Highway commercial- uses to the immediate ivesf; industrial and residential, uses east across .U.S. 101 including but, not limited ,to Redwood Business Park Ill' Petaluma Livestock Yard to the north.) The development of Parcel A was. completed prior to the circulatiori.of the Notice 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 ofthe Nofice of`Preparaton can be seen in'Figure .1 : .2: Aerial 'Photograph of .Project site and Vicinit. DSEIR, P ) page, 1 -3',., These, include the construction of:,a four lane _ y ( freeway- (U.S.. 101), and residential and commercial development projects. Erivironmental' impacts that may have been. associated with these previous projects would properly be. addressed in, the environmental review .documents associated, with each individual, project: For the purposes of the •SEIR, the? previous completion of , :these ,projects and any resulting: environmental effects 20` such previous develo - ment,may,have had' a re re taken into considerat* ,as part of the existing p ion - setting for the ,proposed Proj'ect. Failure . to Ade ly Analyze the Cumulative Impact Reasonably Foreseeable: Future quate of Reasona ,Projects The, SEIR states that its consideration of future a projects for the pur paYes of cumulative impacts was united to only two pr'ojec(s., 1) 'the 'Redwood .Tech'nology Park aid 2) a downstream flood -control I 'project. There, are numerous reasonably f6)-i?se'eabl'e , prgjee-ts in addition- to these two, d east of 101 including, intro alid, 1.) the 30 aere, at &er,Cieek��d lil�-,ati'o,ti,� i�' ctl (commercial and •residential); 2) the Rohn park tribal cahO.0 Federated Indians of.Graton Indian (impacts likely relative, to traffic; Sonoma Co; , Water A '- ncy, water, power generation, on, ge- Wastewater and eme I services), 3)' Rainier-U.S.. 1 Freeway Interchange and' /or Crosstown Connector; 4),a nlaivr residential subdivision l at'l'P.etaluma'Blvd and Jesse Lane, 5) the possibility that the existing, Mall at Parcel �A will be :leveled and rebuilt, 6) projects, in the Central Petaluma Specific Plan project area, 7) he Johnsoh� Property' apartments — zone,d.for over 300 units of housing; "60,p ,ri?jects related to annexation of'northwest Petaluma, 9) big, box development at the site, of , the existing Pacific Cinema theater, . 10) chain stores added to existing retail shopping at.Plaza )Vbrih, Plaza South and Washington; Square, ],1) - redevelopment of Kenilworth Junior High School site 12), develo at the Adobe Lumber site, 13) new housing projects at Magnolia Avenue and Pauli! Lane, and 14) expansion' of Santa Rosa Junior College, At a minimum, the SE IR should have considered ,those reaSotiably. foreseeable future projects Which the SEIR characterized as "the level of development that the City iltimately anticipates in the vicinity of the Project site ,. Figures 2.1 and' Iii fact,' because of the regional nature Of many &f.ihese mp i acts(e.g, traffic, Water, downtown Petaluma Night), the cumulative I _ impact analysis such consider,prqjects outside the te " vicinity (e.g. flood issues within r "immed.ia the floodplain). The cumulative, 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 p/ . received" by the City qjects. The SEIR limits cumulative impacts analysis to those 'fornial, y and "considered complete." In doing so, ,it replaces the CE-Q4s standard of reasonably foreseeable future projects with "absolutely foreseeable - -future projects. The cumulative impacts.flaws discussed above are procedural flaws in, the EIX and - are� - not based .on a difference in opinion nor refuted simpl by substantial evidence. If the City were to certify the SEIR in ,its current form it would be exposi hg itse# scrutiny on these. very issues. "[I]t is' vitally important that an EIR avoid minimizing the cumulative -impacts. Rather, it mus reflect a conscientious entious eff?rt to provide public agencies - and the general public with adequate and relevant detailed information about ,them. P A -cumulative impact analysis which understates infonma-tio.4 concerning the severity and significance of cumulative impacts impedes meaningful public discussion and skews the decisionmakers perspective concerning the environmental consequences of the project, the necessity for mitigation measures, and the appropriateness of project approval. I 21 AV'the, time the DSEfR Was pUbli (November'2002 ' ), CEQA �Q'ti'Welines defined "prob01 future pTOJ&ct_s in Section. 1 (1) (B) [2] zs!f6lI future projects may be, limited to those, projects requiringzft agency approval f6ran applicati6n.whickh 'b hd& een received- : at the time the notice of p reparati on ; refdased. unless abandoned by'the applicant; projects - is included in an adopted capital improver ,general p I Ian, regi6nallransopft 10 n p I an, improvements program, -at i rqJ .. pcts�.,(or development ,Qroih'ers yQTproj!ccti'onso areas design p ?: oJ in a e Plan or a, sim'd r, 'ects anficipatbd� as later' phase, of a prevloqsly zipprciygd Project ('g. a: subdivision); I ror those. public agency prQjqc-,Is° -,fQr which money hA& been budgeted.." "In the currentCEQA Guidelines, discuss of Seitfibn '15 130, . it states; "When analyzing the cumulative - impacts ,of apro"ect 1 J 0 (b) (1 ) f the Lead, Agency 'is required to discim: not- only approved projects under construct and approved' - related projects not yet 'under -construction, but als.p- unapproved projects current current w ith related ;impacts or whi result in significant ,,cum environmental review w C cumulative impact 'The� inclusion-of pqssible: future 46V proposals that ,may .have receive some media., attention at, the time of. s NOP,Issuance,,��,qt that, had. , not been fori-nal . ly submitted, to:-the City, for review or environmental evaluatibnPn to t issuance i'sffahce; of the 'NotIce,ofTrdparatio - would llead tQ speculation in develooing,ihie: cumftlativ',e analysis of proposed Project. None, of thep q - ojqpf listed in the comment above had been, f6rmdfly submitted to 'the. City 'Of Petaluma for environmental, review prior to the'issuance of iheyNoticebf Preparation (July 20,02). Inadequate Analysis o. Proposed IVhtigqtiQn& Land usePoliq Alitikatian Flaws The SEIR f ails to address any mitigation 'related to laid - use plan Policies'.and reg.ulations. - No potentially significant .impacts. were identified in the .Land Use and Planning .Policy section of the D-S-EIR, s no associated mitigation measures, were necessary. Hydrologic Mitigation Flaws There is no analysis of mitigation for the hydrologic inipacts bas of the d etent i on in to be constructed on. the northeast corner ofPdrcel'.0 As indicated RESPONSE JJ20 the detention basin is , on proposed,for water quality mitigation; a . ny ftnoffliming effects will be According rt cidentdl. to th'e -ciVil-plans-, formwatef . _c W -routed to through subsurTkestorm, drqi' ',s'from ing, area and' part of the parking lot. There is' no a `n�jtigaUon,fprJheI hydi;ol6gic, im of the new Village Drive W' hick, will analysis of cross the Petaluma River.. The construction of the proposed 'V. fllage, Drive.: bridge - Was included in the hydrological modeling, conducted for the DSEIR Mitigatio NI - Mitigation ea§ure. 5. 1. 1 (DS EIR, page. 5 -20) would reduce Potential IffiPaet 5i1 Increase 1.00- Water r Surface Elevation in Petaluma River t0 , a level ofAess than;s ' • There is no analysis, of t "lie., effectiveness of the proposed 6,d rologtc mitigations. For.example, Mitigation S. S.1 claims to m nimize,the intrusion of buildings into the f ood,plain: Yet, there is no discussion of where the buildings will belocoted. Wor4sthere disclosure of the extent or location of the Petaluma flood plain pre and post project construction. 'Without disclosure of the location of the buildings and the .extent and" location of the flood plain, the Council and "the public are unable to determine the effectiveness of,the proposed mitigation. The location of buildings proposed 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 tributanes.,,are shown i Figure , IV -B 2FEMA FLOOD ZONE AND CROSS- SECTION LOCATION MAP in .DRAFT ENVfRONMENTAt — RIVER OAKS /PETALUMA OUTLET VILLAGE MASTER 'PLAN (March 1°990) and FSEIR Figure 2 F1oodway:a_nd' n in the Vieinityof the Profee't Site (page C &R -409). It is improper to consider a significant impact to be mitigated to d" t, of less than significance based solely on engineering standards particularly' where as here, water quality has been determined to be Section 3,031imited: The five mitigation measures :identified in the 'DS:EIR (Chapter 5) toi mitigate potential water quality impacts associated, with development of the Project site as, proposed would, in combination, be, expected to. reduce these impacts I& 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 pennitting, process.: Biological Resources Mitigation Flaws CE ' Q q uires that whe re.several - measures are available to mii' e, ,ahi,impact, the basis for A' re selecting a particular ,measure should be identified The SEIR fails to provide this basis for proposed biological resource mttiga'tio'ns. Where mitigation ...measures; are; identified in DSEIR' Chapter 16 '(Hiologi`cal Resources) implementation,of all measures'identif ed ao 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. Performance .standards associated with the issuance of the Clean Water Act Section. 404 Permit, the Section 40l certification and. the Streambed Alteration, Agreement will n`ot be defined Until negotiations have been ,completed "between the Project ,Applicant and the appropriate regulatory agencies (U.S. Army. .Corps °of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control`Board California Fish and Game). The . SEIR has failed, to uconsidet or`.d seuss the feasibility of pr g. � er �a�enetes �nta � not ��be easrble.��.4n � nit mttigattons:�. Obtaining osed u p f f y tigation based on fiscal ermtts and a reements n om 23 contributions rom the Chelsea giv likely infeasi st e, given - that Che has jailed to timely pay $1,2 Millio n Dollars..into.,aii1,i terest'-bear i . n escral v, (is .,requi . I red I by,R I '&s6lat - ion - 1 #91422 an I d; n �,g Resolution #91 4J6 fiOr, mftiga4ions: The. SEIR Ear to analyze the feasibility of the ,proposed m : in- ,li of : Chelsea 's hWow:in_ -this regard I . Likewise the SEIR avoids d0eussio fjedsibility of proposed mitigations based on results R&eil AMitigation Monitoring Plan..- ,01 .g�qnd n Chaptef,6 the DSEIR presents: only thos �e urqi igations that have been tonsidered. feasible. It does not.,address issues re'lated, toJund' ;funding; the measures idefitified. Wetland/Riparian Mitigafibn,' for the Outlet Mall li§� addresse sti on DSEIR pages:6=2'2 and 6-23. The effectiveness, of previous associate i i, ; a e -1 . 1 1. 1 d with, the, development, - of' ' Parcel.' A did, not constrain the identifi Pion o �!bio]06CA fca mitigation. 'measures 66r the ptopbsed development of Parcel :B and Parc6l C. _4ds o disc ssmitigFf it re plants eequir nfent df AesoltitiO4 91-136. desp�te:the e that4,d sur plants �e Widertakm As indicated, on DSEIR page 6-6- no special status plants were observed du studies u ies conducted. in. the Project area in I 03,,and it. status p I'ant species given the disturbed °natum site and t low quality of exisfiri hab g f a i led an The SEIR' ded t - Mitigqtions-fbr�" all of thje,species present ;on. the -Site,. includin thex. Sacramento spittail,'despite the-commentsof the Dept. of Fish and Game, Potential - Project- related impacts to speci:al status species are addressed , on DSETR R 6-26 thr6fjgh,6- RESPONSE F-J on FSEIR - page§C&R-67 and C&R- �f6r a discus'sion, of. the Sacramento splittad an,&potentiial Proj,ctv�,'�he ated"impacts'.to-t I his species; The SEIR' failed to define the location ,of '10hds,on the - project and the location and ext wet gilt Of mitigations:- Areas Subject to Section 404 Clean Water AcOur'isdic"fi"oh are shown in I)SEIR, Figu re,,O. 1, 'arid Figure 6.2 (pages 6-4 and 6,S). These.,fig�qr both show potential _Section f 404 Jurisdictional Wetlands On Parcel. B and Parce I 0. A Wetlands Nlffigafi6n Plan - W Pr Applicant in order, to o btain o; S ction 4.04, Peffnit ftorn the U' y C of � 0 1 e i Agn Corp Engineers, and such :a plan would, define, the extent of wetfand&rnifi Ration to he' . satisfaction, of the Corps.* The -STIR fails to discuss ' feasible. mitigation for the chan • in the �&'2&acre abandoned! - railroad right of 'way; Sign iji cant : vegeidtio wa ,lost a riparian" w d, . a wetlands - a ar as fille corridor and wetlands acreage were losi witkthis devek - hl6n't. Tet, - the SEYff, discuss any oP Mils to mitigation for ,these . The SEIR evaluates evaluates the - Petalurna Village MArketpla e Project a& shown. . n RE VIS ED' DSEIR Figure , .T.13;. Project Site Oh page, C&R-jO 6f the ,_F&' FJR. All develo.pipent,propog at the; time of DSEIR p .20.02 ) including any development proposed within;the: 24 abandoned railroad right =of- -way; is evaluated in the SEIR. The exist g conditions discussions ® presebted 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 may' have 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 development that has already taken place in thevicinity of Parcel B and Parcel C, no mitigation measures have' been identi fed. The SEIR violates Resolution 91 -136 which required'eivironmental review of Parcels B and C to provide analysis" of mitigati.'on, to minimize adverse impacts 'to. Capri Creek, the Petaluma River .and other natural physical' features, including riparian habitat, seasonal wetlands and freshwater marsh. are identified n DSEIR Chapter 5 and Chapter- 6, w ith also,��i sand associated habitats tentiall significant Pro ect related impacts related to local waterway mitigation measures that could reduce these impacts to , a level of less than significant. The SEIR further violates Resolution 91 as ' there has; been no preparation of a riparian enhancement plan for Parcels Band C, including identification. of creek setback based on environmental values, hydrologic constraints, and protection ,and preservation of existing habitat. As indicated in Mitigation .1Vlemure 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 Qual ity Control Board and/&the,, California Department of Fish and Game. Such a plan could be expected to incorporate riparian enhancement features. Traffic and Circulation Mitigation Flaws CE QA required that where sever mitigate an impact; the basis for Q q al measures are available .to m selecting a Particular measure should be identified. The SEIR fails to provide this basis for proposed traffic and circulation mitigations. identified for Potential' Impact 7'. 1 and Potential I_mpact 7.5, all intended to measures are In DSEIR Chapter 7 .(Traffic: and Circulation) a set of three ossible miti afi o. reduce traffic congestion, at th e i ntersection of P ma Boulevard . North /Washington;Street. As explained'.in 'etalu , these mitigation measures For that reason these two otential impacts Nav ten id ent oti a the DSEIR 'there are real rcblems that could "revert the, effective im g � p p_ Have "been identified as significant. and unavo:idable.. The SEIR, defers. mitigations without specifying per formance standards cjr criteria. As indicated on DSEIR page 7 -12 where intersections would perform aCLOS 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-re related impacts I would. ould. be reduced to a level OfIess thane. •. sf through the implementation of those mitigation measures.. The SEIR. has failed to consider or discuss the: jeqsi , bifityp?f ., Ahy. mitigation prQposed,mitigatio , based on fiscal contributions from: the, Chelsea dre'likely infeasible given that Chelsea has failed to timely pay $ -1 .2 Million Dollar _ s,, into an' escrow as r �hy,R esolution , #91-122 anJ,Resolulion #91-136 for, iraff ,?c mitigations, The: SEIR fails to: analyze the feasibility of the e proposed,mitigation. in 'light of Chelsea 's histoty in this regard. In response t , o comments the SEIR acknowledged that, in the. absence of funding, effective implementation of proposed traf fic mitigations. is, in, doubt. - Likewise, the SEIR. avoids discussion, offeasibility p,,,proposed lm i tigations,,based on results from, the Parcel AMitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan. In 1� hapter 7' c6nsiderdble 'thought was �9'iven to the feasibili of mitigation measures, s, as I Ity w itnessed by t he he identifi sever Projettfie'lated �impacts,as �sigriificant and unavoidable, despite "the identi'fi6ation of possible mitigg that appeared to be infeasible, The . effectiveness of previous mitigation associated,. with the development,. of Parcel A., did :note !propos ificatioti.6f:traffi'c�fnitigatio'n measures for the proposed constrain the. identification eveloorn.ent , of Par'c&I B, and-Parcel C. The,SEIR failed ,t6. consider feasible fraffic, miti glaffio I ns,, including I those proppsedby, Caltrans. The incorporated all traffic: mitigation 'Measures identified as feasible by ;Lead Agency„ the City of Petaluma.. • The SEIR fails to comply. with Resolution 91-�.136; Condition 51 (E requirement )s that specific and "area " traffic, mitigations associated with projects on B & C shall ,be identified co "th, he e i sp ecifiw ncurrent'WI t nV �Onmental analysis - pf the prqject. Traffic impjct& With the pfoposet Pr 'ect (the development pmeht of,Parcel B and Parcel C) are. n d u evalate i DSEIR pages 7; through 1 ... 1- " . g -147-27. Mitigation, of, CEQ,4 has responde the Problem of incremental environmental degradation: by requiring analy cumulative impacts. BvAvaidIngpr6&r,dnalysis of the cumulative impacts,, the SEIR makes: no attemptio discuss Potential mitigations for; any cumulative impact Mitigat iog measures that would :reduce Prqj'q`ct-;related "gets to a ley, I p qjofless than.signi would also' reduce any Project - related contribution ;to curnulati,"ve impacts a level of fess; than significant. VI. The EIR Failed toAdequateli respond to Comments. The goyerning �' standard fo sp r.re on's&,;t6cor,!,tients'iiid-FEIR- , "in preparing;the final EIR,.the [agencti] must describe the disposition of each•of the significant environmental issues raised and must particularly 'set forth J?,i detail, the reasons why the particular comments and „. objections were . rejected and why the .,[ agency J considered. the development of the project to be of overriding importance ,A eonclusory statement unsupported by, -, ,empirical or, ,, experimental data, scientific authorities or explanatory information of any kind " not only fails to crystallize issues ,(citation) but ''affords no- basik for a comparison of the Problems involved,in the alternatives. "n Citation. Moreover, where comments f p experts, y . f y nflletrng rr opinions that ron responsible or sister agencies disclose new or c data o cause concern that the agency ma .not have dl evaluated the project and its alternatives, these comments may no,t simply be' ignored. There ',must be good faith. 'reasoned analysis4n response. (Emphasis added.) (Citation.o nitte'd) :,;. We conclude that the [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) 48.•'Cal.App.4`" 182, :191) The SEIR 's Response to Comments (RTC) fails to 1) describe„ the disposition of each of. the significant environmental issu "es 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 state Hems "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 'o that particular comment and in the ` °Revisions to the Draft ® Subsequent EIR" section 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 California„ Endangered Species Act for ensuringrthe long -term survival of California wildlife and' habitat. In that role DFG's comments' demand •g"o"od faith and reasoned analysis and detailed reasons why the particular. comments and objections were rejected. 'The SEIR in- its. current form fails' meet. these CEQA standards: Foal example, -DFG comments that the SEIR most "analyze impacts' to steelhead migration and rearing habitat" because of 'the project potential toirnpact the Petaluma, River, its riparian bwoodlands and adjacent wetlands. DFG �coihihents that Table 6-3 and: Table' 6 -4 are rnaccurate - regardcng steelheadl Sacramento spittail, California freshwater shrimp. '.DFG continents that 'the' Draft SEIR conclusions regarding .impacts to fish at p., 6 -31 are "not justified'' and hat steelhead, Sacramento vIsPittail, 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 'eonipletely ignored' No changes are made in the: Final SEIR: ;and no responsive analysis is provided regarding "impacts " to sieelhead. • DFG co ff f ° roil is" presented in the- DRAFT SEIR to just ify a mmerrts that msu' tcretit `tn oniiatr conclusion that -no mitigation is needed. ; DFG then,suggests - 5,separate: feasible _nt tigatiotis, for th,e impacts. DFG, foresees to special status f s'li. The RTC provides no -response .,'to -this comment. See -Response F -6. The RTC provides; no response to DFG's comment that focused surveys may be needed'io confirm, -that there will be no inipacts'to shrimp. DFG comments that there 'is',no discussion ,of tbe. Jtnpacts' 1 of the proposed :river- walk trail and suggests ,a mitigation .that the river walk trail: and any landscaping.be located outside. the, 100 foot, landscape setback.. The. RTC does not provide the: requested impact :a nalysis or address DFG's comments,* instead the - -RTC reiterates: the proposed project: No revisions were made 16 Chapter 6 of the SEIR in response to DFG's substant v' e',comn:e - nts. Responses to the comments on the, DSEIR submitted by the Californi'a.Depart'ment of Fish; and Game (FSEIR LETTER F) are presented .on FSEIR pages C &R 6T through C &R-70. As indicated' above,- not changes- were made to the text of.DS'EIR ;Chapter` 6 i response to these comments. CAL-,TRA.NS Comments f . p ._ of g _ a p p Caltrans,it�quires as.to'.the timetable or im lem'entation o each mrti ation measure, a ro - �osed'n 'Cha ter .7 in relation, to the project ect de -velo ment schedule: The RTC re erences:classi .ic •. p P 1 P, f � _ .__ f at . p. CR9 to CR14.. Review of that section -provides no. - infor,inat on' on the. fimetab'le 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" Pfovided FSEIR _pages . C&'R -7 through C &R -14 addressed', traff c.,conditions .and: mitigation. measures in, terms, of `the' short -term '(next few years): and long -,term (to 2'015). A ` for mplernentat on of each. of the. �traff c mitigation measures i`dentif ed J'n the D:SEIR has not been.,d;eve'1_oped pending City decisions: on the allocation, of resources td accomplish these mitigation measures; although improvements at the Future Village: Drive intersection with Petaluma Boulevard North (Mitigation Measure 7:3..1 and Mitigation Measure TS would need to be comp'leted' prior to opening Y111age Drive to traffic. BAAQMD Comments f BAAQMDecomm1 nds "substantially .m ore, Irmltdscon he air quality, impacts and .lo reduce vehicle, trips be to the SEIR.'s iected from the specific project or location," as the vehicle emissions, for this project' are more than double the District "s thresholds: Specif calk; BAA'QMD "reconini "mils consideration of reduced parking ,space and'• employee incentive`s to ride - IrafiM. The RTC` rejects the idea :of preparing more.., air :duality 28 initigations, wliholtt pr , detalled' reasons wh the BAAQt11D comments and objections were rejected. While; the "City Council ivill ultimately decide, "the role of the EIR is to provide effective, f g f Council to consider — particularly where, as here, the SEIR s mitig g ation measur f "es ail totreduce, air quality unpa&s 7o 1e' ss than signif cant. . Thus the RTC further fails as it does no? ;, set forth *by the development of-Me project is considered of overriding importance. ' See RESPONSE 004 and;RES'PONSE 00 -5 on FSEIR page',C&R- 28 "5..Given the magnitude the p le Hated rmpact� on regional, ; it q � alrt based, on the modeling conducted for DSUR . im me g of the Project antics air qu y tat,ion of the add'it�onal anon imeasures 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 rizpacts 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 the reasons why the comments were rejected. The RTC responds to Keller °'s comments ,regarding project inconsistency with the River Access and Enhancement Specific'Plan' by "stating :that the project is "generally consistent. " Without explaining the degree. and scope of the consiste inconsistency, the RTC has employed � " impermissible conclusory statements ,unsupported by data . or explanatory 'information. While true that the City Council will determine General Plan consistency, the .EIR `s role is to promote informed decision making by addressing 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 bean: abuse: of discretion. See LETTER JJ and associated RESPONSES on FSEIR pages. C&R -197 through C &R -2'70. 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 l om the. demise, of local downtown businesses as ,a result of the proposed project, including adverse impacts to Central Petaluma traffic and circulation, 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, physietxl' impacts which may be gnif cant. The RTC again, employs conclusory statements unsupported `by data or explanatory information and thus avoids the good faith, reasoned analysis required by CEQA 4 See LETTER.JJ and associated RESPONSES on FSEIR, C &'R -197 through C &R -270. The RTC does not respond to Keller's- comments regarding a ditty to'" use the most recent and ® comprehensive information available; thus avoiding a description of the disposition of this 29 significant" issue. The RTC. ivon`'t touch,Keller's comment that..there is piecenlealing of a larger ad o d to, °oKeller's`ccomoi +ld connect to a Rainier; °road ali g nment p roject.. ;The. RTC does Trot •' - p v n�ents that the (J S. Army Corps of Engineers :told. Petaluma all re additional building upstream -hill compromise ,the food ,control project The RTC does not respond to Keller's that the SEIR does'not assess the, cumulative, loss of wetlands for A upper Petaluma- River basin; where this.,proposed _project is located' The RTC does not respond to Keller 's comments that'there to be surveys for shrimp as the surveys conducted were too; late. in the season. See LETTER JJ !and associated RESPONSES on FSEIR page& C &- R- 1974hrough C &R - 270. The RTC does not respond: to Keller's comments regarding the alterzat,ve. of pur. chasing the Corona Pe Reach of the taluma ..River, : as a .park the need for analysis . of `additional species, inconsistency with the Oak Preservation ,Zone., •or .cu)nulative loss to th'e River corridor. with concerns b solely the CB resardt o the river walk d�a� s with .none of these issues, Hut only , y Q S: g See, LETTER JJ and. associated RESPONSES ,on:, FSEIR pages C &R 4197 through C: &R= 2370.:. 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 Petal'urna ' i:�er Access ,and _ _ Enhancement Plan. 30 0,