HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 7.A 08/16/2004TA
August 1.6,.20:04
City of Petaluma, California' .
Memorandum
(707) 778 -4301 Fax (707) 778 -4498 E -mail: cdd@mPeialuma.ca.us
DATE: August 5,20Q4
TO: Mike Bierman, City Manager, .
FROM: Michael Moore, Community Development,Directo
Betsi Lewitter, Project Planner
,e
SUBJECT: Petaluma Village Marketplace
2200 Petaluma Boulevard North
BACKGROUND:
In 1991, the entire 72.47 -acre project site was zoned , Planned Community District,
Floodplain Combining and Floodway and a Planned Community District (PCD) Master
Plan Program was approved. The Petaluma Village Premium Outlets was subsequently
constructed on ParcelYA the applicants are now requesting approval of a modification to
the previously approved PCD `Master Plan Program to allow development of Parcels B
and C. In compliance with the conditions of approval,. -the City retained Lamphier
Gregory to prepare a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) to assess the
impacts of the proposed development for Parcels B and C. .
The Planning - Commission -held public hearings on .the, Draft ; Subsequent Environmental
Impact Report. (DSEIR)' on January, 14, January 28 and February 23, 2003. The Final
Subsequent EIR (FSE'IR) was reviewed by the Commission on April" 22, 2003, at which
time they voted 5 -1 to recommend certification to the City Council., (This .decision was
upheld on May 27, 2003, when the Commission voted. against- a reconsideration of their
recommendation.) Project details were considered at the Planning Commission meetings
of May 27, June 10, July 22, October 28 and December 9 2003, after which the
Commission voted 4 -2 to recommend to the City_ Council approval of the modification to
the'PCD `Master Plan Program.
The City Council held a public hearing on June 21, 2004. After presentations by staff and
the applicant, the hearing was opened for comments on the •SEIR. The; Council requested
additional information, and. the ,public hearing was continued to the meeting of July 19,
2004. Unfortunately, the item could not be heard that , night and the item was continued
once again to August 2, 12004 and then to August 16, 2004. John - Courtney, from
I V1
Lamphier Gregory, as well as the principal SEIR, consultants on traffic and hydrology
will be available at the August ; l6 meeting to answer questions.
COUNCIL INQUIRIES:
During the public hearing on June 2.1, 2004, public comments were made that the SEIR
was deficient. because: _the, project definition changed during the Planning Commission
public hearings; the mitigation of impacts to endangered species was the permit process
by other agencies (which will require further surveys); cumulative - 'impacts were not
addressed; there was no discussion regarding the consistency of the project with the
General Plan, the ,River Enhancement Plan and the: Central Petaluma Specific Plan and
incorrect data was used for the hydrology ,report. In addition, 'the Council requested
information%clarificatioii on procedural issues regarding the recommendations of the
Planning Commission to the City Council,, indemnification and traffic alternatives.
Project. definition: The SEIR evaluated the project as defined at thertime thel DSEIR and
FSEIR were prepared. Although the Planning. Commission hearings resulted in some
modifications to the description of the project as: defined in the SEIR, the modifications
would. not result in. any new significant environmental effects not evaluated in the SEIR
and would not be expected to increase the magnitude of any significant project - related
environmental effects identified in the SEIR. Some of the modifications actually resulted
in a reduction of potential environmental effects.
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 of environmental effects. "The CEQA report process; is not
designed .to freeze the ultimate proposal in the precise mold of the initial project; indeed,
new ,and unforeseen 'insights may emerge during - investigation, evoking revision :of the
original proposal." (Kings County Farm Bureau, supra, 221 Cal. App: 3d at pp. 736 -737)
Mitigation of Impacts to Endangered Species: As indicated in the DSEIR (see DSEIR
pages .6 -26 "through 6 -30), where the project would be expected to have potentially
adverse effects on special status species, no development at the site could proceed until
the public agencies responsible for the protection of those species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service,, California. Department of Fish and Game) have issued all necessary permits to
enable construction to proceed without putting these species in jeopardy. The DSEIR
clearly,. indicates - (DSEIZ pages 6 -26 through 6 -31),� that additional pre- construction
surveys of the project site will be necessary, first to determine the extent to which special
status species may (or may not) be present at the project site as the initiation of
construction activity approaches, and second, to enable the permitting agencies to define
the site- specific,mitigation measures to be applied by the project applicant as conditions
of permit issuance. The permitting agencies will generally not consider permit
applications for review until the 'CEQA environmental review process for a project has
been completed. For this reason, it is, not "possible to identify the site - specific " iitigation
measures associated with the protection of special status species in'-the DSEIR, as these
1 0
can only be 6leaTly through subsequent consultation and agreement - between the
agencies theins,blyes.�,iild projeet applicant.
Cumulative, Impacts:, The SEIR evaluate d the project within the, context of the
OJ
cumulative conditions as they existed in the local area. at the time the Notice of
Preparation was distributed, for ptibli . c review, (July 2, 2002). As - indicated in the FSEIR
_Ic
Response,* 0-4, (FSEIR, pages C&R 122-7423 the cumulative analysis_ presented in the
DSEIR was - based M:'thb assumed,, completion of two" projects � ih.the vicinity of the
" ,
project site that had been. formally -submitted to the - City , of Petalurnafior review when the
Notice'-of Preparation was distributed (the Redwood Technology Center and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers 0 e
g eers fl ood owitr tproj, ct). Other proj ects;mentioned by a speaker at
A he June .2-1s City Council dil-hean'rig. were- not included in the NO SEIR because at the
time the document. was released,,nog formal applications , had been submitted to the City.
Future development potential based on buifdout assumptions from General Plan research
and the Central Petaluma Specific 'Plan, 'however,, were used to evaluate future local
traffic.
Consistency with :General Plan , Policies and Petaluma River Access and
Enhancement Plan,: Q -5, on paje the Draft
I As indicated in Re Sp
Subsequent EIR, indicat6s:,that " the:prQposed Project 'is'consistent With the; approved River
Oaks/Petaluma Factory Outlet Village Master Plan Program, -is consistent with the
current Petaluma Genera_ l Plan land use designation -for the site, is.consistent with the
current zoning for the ':site,. and is generally consistent with the General Plan and
Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan goals policies.
Chapter 2 of theb9EIR lists t seven central ' lgoal& o Petaluma
's General Plan. and how,
I - . �. - . 1. 1 1 - - I eve I. .
the goals., relate to j the, project. The project's with specific General Plan
policies is also reviewed on pages 2 -8 through 2-17 of the DSE I IR. The document stated
that the proposed d evelopment of Parcels B and C' with the inclusion of mitigation
measures and coiiditiohspf approval be 'consistent w iththese policies. In addition,
the consistencyof the, entire pr the General Plan policies was determined at the
time of certification :ofr the � original EIR. Conditions were then imposed on the
. .- I— Ultimately, , of approval
project to clarify and/or rdirif6rc:o - the. ,policies. Ultimately, the decision regarding;Proj ect
consistency with approved plans and polices of the City.of Petaluma rests with the City
Council, and not With the preparers of the Draft Subsequent EIR
Consistenc Y w m- . ith Central. Petaluma Specific Plan: The Central Petaluma Specific,Plan.
(CPSP) not formally aqop�tqd,by City Council until June , 2,, , 20,03,. approximately 2
months following.'. the completion of, ih&'FSEIR. 'The , ;CPSP'provides , -f or intense mixed-
use development-iliat,em. hasizes-,ped'esffiani. and b icycle access i . n the central core: of the
City. The Petaluma, Village Marketplace site is riot'- within the CPSP prcject. area. In
addition, there is nothing in the plan that prohibits development of larger retail
opportuniiies,'in other parts, 'of the Ci y The P.etdluniaVil,lag�. Marketplace would provide
Cit 1 1
an area for larger retail,, stores that would supply, goods not 'available in the :smaller
downtown, shops
t.
Hydrology Dat - A: Chapter 5 of ifie� DSEIR
I (as. modified by the revisions presented on
FS'EIR pages! R-8 through R-1 85 p resents the hydrological 'aria
j - . lysis - conducted by Philip
Williams Associates for the SEIR. This analysis was conducted usin the most current
data Available at the `time of 1)8 preparation- (S j urniner/Fall 2002), and reflects the
prPfe.ssional, opinions of the SEIR hydrological consultants. biffer6nces between,
previous hydraulic modeling results for the prQj pet site (WESCO 1990) and the 2062
PWA.hy&aulic modeling results are :explained oft.DSEIRpages 542. and 5_13. Thb,S E IR
acknowledgeis that additional on flood hazards may,'be available.in.the future
as indicated on FSEIR page R42, "'The hydrodynamic' analys . is of flood conditions
developed for the EIR'should onl be usod'for the purposes !troposed
9 - j T _. �
Proj ect: New information is being 'developed for submittal to FEMA to update the
regulator y floodplain maps . in light of the Petaluma Flood Project this information was
not available to review for consi'ste'ncy to the Draft ;Subsequent EIR analysis. In addition,.
the City's General Plan update will include development of ahXP-SWMM. model that
will likely, be preferred 'for future flood' 'hazard analyses of, the" Petaluma River."
However, at the time 'of SEIR preparation, additional information, related to . the futuree.
FEMA floodplain map update and the generated through the future modeling for the
Genera ,Plan update was not available,
The 'hydraulic. analysis of the project . site indicated that it would ."function, in a
hydro logically similar waywith, and without the proposed Proje
c under flood conditions.
Therefore,. an in the local 100 7Year peak runoff rate due to the Project does" not'
represent a sighificaht " to , flood , conditio ns in the Petaluma
River." (DSEIR, page
5-19) On DSEIR -page 5-22, it is stated that "Hydraulic model results indicate that •
implementation 'of a .strategic site layout: (limiting encroachment of buildings! on the
Petaluma, River- channel -and complying with the Cit of Petaluma's Z&t& Not Fill polity.)
adequatelymidgateg the potential
for substantially, increased '100-year peak h6w& and'
water surface elevations, due to the Project. Modeling shows that lqcali2ed rea§e
in c s in
1,00 ' -Year water su elevation Are well below the I-foot maximum required by
FEMA'.s Modw.dy requirement and, w6uld, not c substantially "increased flood
Hazards for the area in the vicinity of the site -where change - h refoie, the
is expected. T, e
proposed mitigation measure (strategic site design) reduces this 1gotential impact to a
level of less than Significant."
The: Retail Leakage - Sixidy The City commissioned Thomas `Consultants; Inc. to
prepare a Retail Leakage and Strategy Study "in 2003; The ptirpose of the y w,
p stud was to
measure the opportunities for retail facilities' that Would, redir
pet and recapture, retail ,sales
in Petaluma. 'The` stud an
,y was prepared between July 'an November 20 and was
Augmented by a Consumer survey taken in July and. August 2
- 003 to ".kaugeaan
quantify
the magnitude of "current retail voids, and the resultant I draft
and Strategy ' Study was released,on No vember 12, 2003.
The consumer survey :found - that, less than half of the respondents used Petaluma
shopping centers as their of
r ary shop majority egu ar prini ,pmgl destindtions". Th6T rity
respondents shop locally for day, -to =day , ay convenience needs but went outside Petaluma �,
for companison shopping good's (e.g. - fashion, electronics and home, furn ishings). The
y
responses to the survey ";indicated that ,Petalumans desired a .balanced variety of value,
mid-ranged and upscale:specialty stores, downtown 'as well as close to Highway -1:01. The
report recommended that large format general merchandise stores, discount department .
stores, large; format house and home' centers; large format electronics/home entertainment
stores and name brand retailers be added to the City's retail opportunities.
The report evaluated the: retail- suitability of eight sites within the .City :based on criteria
including site visibility and exposure, accessibility; location, adjacent land uses, site
configuration and redevelopment availability. The study, cited the strengths of the Outlet
mall location as: large, linear exposure and ,frontage to - Highway 101, established cluster
of comparison retail; ,and region -wide appeal and draw. The weaknesses of the site
include no access to Highway f0 not being near an existmg :iriterchange with Highway,
101, poor exposure to, Petaluma Boulevard_ North, and sub- optimal layout and
configuration.- Therefore,, the Petaluma Village�;,Marketplace was ranked. last out of the
eight and the study recommended' that additional developmeint',be, a, longer -term prospect
_ velopment (Section 10.7).
However, the stud also,reco nded the Pe aluma.Villa e O
after better-accessed
y g utlet.locaton as one of the
sites for Highway- Tourist commercial uses where land. could be assembled and
developed as a regional center to introduce missing large- format retailers (Figure 12.1). If
the City a cross =town co
ty p nnector. (Rainier);; as the.Council apparently wishes, then
this might be expected to change the ,site. rankings from the study; since the project site
would then. be p rovided with much` better access, to Highway. 10.1', and would probably
gain a higher score relative to the other- 7 sites evaluated.
The study concluded that "with the complementary and optimal retail positioning and
mix recommended for -each of Petaluma's retail clusters, there could be as.much as 2.3`1
million square feet of vibrant retail functions, within Petaluma. .,,,,,the total analysis
indicates ' there is an opportunity, to add lip to 1.17 million, square;.feet of .new retail
functions." This retail space would generate approximately $77'5'm - fllibn per annum in
retail sales, resulting in;$2.5 million,,tax revenues' annually, as we'll as the generation of
3,084 new jobs.
Living Wage: The Living Wage Coalition of Sonoma County was forined,in early 2001.
The coalition urges the. adoption of living wage, laws ,in the cities and. County.of, Sonoma.
The City d"Petaluma previously considered a Living Wage- Ordinance, but : did not :take
any action:
-In the absence of detailed information on future tenants, it is not °yet known what the
actual wages to be paid at the prod ect site would be, and ,any ;effort to, predict future wage
rates at this',point would be speculative. Although the Council could,require. a living "wage
condition of approval', such a condition has not been imposed on any other retail'project.
'rovides any nd cation thatg,a CEQA Guidelines Appendix G (Initial .Study
Checklist
In terms of `the CE A anal sis nothin m
p Wages have any relationship, to the environmental
review process. Since the focus .of' the EIR process, is on physical changes . in the
environment, and not on the economic effects associated with the project', Appendix G
(which provided the basis for establishing the significance criteria for the SE IR), IR), the
CE9A Guidelihes and the California Environmental 'Quality Act (Public Resources
Code Sections, 2,1000 —:21 not address, a need to evaluate, wa . go . rates within the
rn
context of environ entaf review.
Impact to Downtown: While formulating the Central Petaluma Specific Plan, a list of
concept's was developed to guide the development. of the central core of Petaluma.
National chains of 5 to "7,000 square feet were -included for consideration, but not-
"big box" retail. As the Retail - Leakage and Strategy Study det large format
9 rmi
stores should be added to the "shopping <ap por tunifies in Petaluma, to capture dollars
currently being"4pent outside the city.. The retail - spaces proposed for2the Petaluma'Village
Marketplace would allow theloc4tion of larger stores not: appropriaie'for.ihe downtown.
Procedural Questions: At the hearing. on June, 2 comments were made by the: public
and ,,a member of the Council contending that the Planning Commission was "cotrced!"byz
staff into recommending to the City Council that, the SEIR for the Petahima.Villa'ge
Marketplacei be certified, as adequate` and that 'the project be approved. The' attached
memo, to the Planning, Commission dated, M .,6, 2003 - was was provided'in' response 'to a.
request from
Commissioner Stephanie McAllister to reconsider the Plan
Co mmissJon's decision to recommend certification of the SEIR. The intent ofthe, memo
was to provide the Commission with:applicabie citations from the state CEQAguideli!!es
and the City :s local guidelines to consider when. maki their recommendation: and to
9 9
explain Jn greater -detail the basis for *staffs recommendations to the TI g
Commi ssion , . Community Development staff routinely makes recommendations to the
anning' and City every new development; proj ecfand sup port' U g6rf .
those recommendations with our anal It then responsibility°of the, Commission
. and. Council toevaluate that information,,arotig with all of the other 'information
that :is
part of the public record= and make adecision, that may or may not dt be'consistent with the
recommendations of staff. When - an env"Irorimental IMP Act report is involved, as She
case With. the, Chelsea Application, CEQA requires that the decision- making; I bodies
exercise. "indevendent judgment" ,in determining the adequacy of the EIR. The attached
memo and any comments that Community Development staff made during the of
the Planning Commission"& deliberations on this. project were intended to assist the
Commission i I n �e exercising its "indeDendent judgment" and hig,the integrity of
the development ,review process The 'Planning Commission subsequentl Y I made a
-recommendation on the adequacy of the. SEIR and the project. The City 'Council must
now exercise"; ts own discretion in considering those recommendations.
Indemnificatioic, 'The, City Attoimeywwas :initially consulted on tf - ii`� when 'the,
s
Planning 'Co mmigsion raised the. qu-estion of indemnification against any I osses " d ue
to
flooding if the hydrology report for the SEIR "is 'inaccurate. Mr. kudnan,sk'v' notedAhat
con tract between the SEIR consultant, Who retained the hydrology subcontractor, and the
City includes an, indemnification for the City against 'all blaims and damages 10, any
property or an y , pprson Which may arise, out of cotsultAht's negligent ,acts; errors or
om issions ' . issions. However, if the consulting firm aiss6lves' and no longer exists, there, maybe
no respon entity for such indemnity and d.efbns,e. In his research, the City Attorney
did riot find any authority for such indemnification nor 'a prohibition of it. In his opinion,
• however, even if .a condition for indemnification is imposed and accepted' by the
developer without a challenge, there are so many potential variables and obstacles that it
is questionable whether the City- would be assured 'of. having the desired level or
p - ' in perpetuity. Recommended condition of approval No. .13• was included to
rotection
address the Planning Commission's .request. If the City Council desires to impose such a
condition, the City Attorney would draft the final language for the indemnification.
Performance Standards for Wetland 'Mitigation: The Mitigation Monitoring program
for the original Petaluma Facto' Outlet Village included performance standards for the
mitigation wetlands. The wetlands were expected to have anywhere from 4, inches to 18
inches of water that should last, for at. least 2 months, but no longer than 6 months. The
wetlands would -be required to have a greater than 65 % average cover by wetland
classified plants (hydrophytes), both. native and. on- natives. This is also, the required total
area of plant coverage,• not counting bare spaces,, which in seasonal wetlands can
sometimes happen. Of the area „covered, by plants, at; least. 60 %o must be native seasonal
wetland species. To get A. diversity of plants, within this :60% o there must be at least 7
different species with.each covering a minimum of 4 %. These very difficult performance
standards were met in the existing
During a site inspection.in April. of this year, representatives of the'U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers, the State Department of -Fish and Game, The Regional Water Quality. Control
Board .and the National Marine Fisheries Service were impressed with the high quality of
the mitigation wetlands in terms of total vegetative cover, cover by native plants, richness
of plant diversity, and hydrology functioning: The mitigation plan for the new mitigation
areas will also include- similar performance criteria to assure that these mitigation. areas
are as successful as. those created in 1993. The actual performance standards for the
mitigation efforts on the two parcels will be determined by regulatory agencies during
the permitting process, after the CEQA environmental review has been completed.
Traffic relief from consiri ction .of north /south collector road along Highway 101:
The original conditions of approval (23 C and D) stated. that development approval for
Parcels B” and C may require completion of the collector road connecting the factory
outlet village -with either the proposed east /west overpass /interchange or Petaluma
Boulevard North as deemed appropriate through further specific project environmental
review. The traffic study completed by Whitlock & Weinberger Transportation, Inc. for
the new development on B and C determined that "...a collector road linking Parcels A
and C directly, to Corona Road would not be needed to accommodate traffic associated
with. the development proposed, as the streets and study intersections at the periphery of
the project site would have adequate capacity to operate acceptably without such a
roadway nn place" (Draft SEIR page .7 -27). Although the SEIR traffic analysis indicated
that the .project - related traffic would not require the construction of the collector to
adequately serve the -project, sufficient ,space would still be available to allow the
construction of such a collector if it were found to be necessary at _some point in :the
future
Upgrade of Village Drive from two to four lanes:. The SEIR traffic study assigned all .
new traffic associated with Parcel C and, the existing outlets to the existing Factory Outlet
Drive. New trips associated with Parcel B were. assumed to use the new Village Drive.
The study concluded that these two .roads (both of which would provide for one lane of
traffic in each direction). could serve all new traffic associated with development at the
Petaluma Village Marketplace. Additional environmental review would need. to be done
if the City were to determine that the Rainier .east /west connection should tie into a four-
lane. Village Drive connection to Petaluma Boulevard North.
CONCLUSION:
The SEIR consultants will be present at the meeting to answer questions'. The Mayor has,
proposed that the Council. consider. the SEIR prior to project review. Therefore, at the
conclusion of the public testimony and "Council deliberation on the SEIR, the Council
could move to a decision oil the adequacy of the SEIR before opening the public hearing
on the project, itself
Attachments: Memo to Planning Commission (May 6, 2004)
.Constraints Map
Ll
•.
Community Developm _erit'Department, 11 English Street, Petaluma; CA 94952
:
(707) 778=4314 Fax (707) 7784498 E -mail: mmoore@cipetaluma.ca us
DATE: May 6, 2003
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Mike Moore', Directoo
SUBJECT: Reconsiderationb ,the' Final Subsequent Enviromiental Impact Report for the
Petaluma Village Marketplace
On April 22, 2003, the Planning',, C"Ofi voted 5 -1 -1 (Commissioner Von Raesfeld, absent).
to recommend that the City Council ;certif the Final Subsequent' Environmental Impact Report
Y n, y uen
q
(FSEIR) for the proposed expansion of the Petaluma Village Marketplace: On April 23, staff and
Commissioners received an e -mail from David Keller (attached) . contending that the
"certification recommendation on FSEIR .be: voided" and 'that I "the Commission reopen their
hearing " ESEIR ;and' "hold hearings and make recommendations on the
project and deliberations ect and PCD Plan. as entrtle the d' by the- Zoning Ordinance. "' , Oii April 25, 2003, I received a
letter from Commissioner `McAllister (also attached) requesting a response to Mr: Keller's
comments and 'requesting that the - Planning Commission reconsider its recommendation to the
City Council to- certify the FSEIR.
To respond to questions and comments raised in the two pieces of correspondence, this :memo is
divided into three parts 1) the,process reviewing a'Final M the process for reviewing
the project (the amend'ment!'to the;PCD master plari); and 3) the reconsideration process.
Process' of Reviewing the' ,Final' EIR :. ,'
Thee basic purpose of the :California Environmental Quality Act, as described in Section
150,02(4)(1 4) of the CEQA Guidelines s.to 1) inform governmental decision=makers ,and he
public about the potential, significant- environmental 'effects �of proposed activities;, 2) identify
w ays "that .environ ma
mental dage•;can be avoided or-significantly reduced, 3) prevent significant,
a
voidable damage Gto the eriviroiitnent by requiring changes liri 'projects through, the use of
alternatives or mitigation,,.--measures;, wh en the governmental agency 'finds the changes to be
feasible; and 4) disclose-to the public, 'the reasons why a governmental agency approved the
project in the manner the agency.chose if significant environmental effects are involved. It is the
responsibility of Community Development Department staff and the: consultants hired by the
Cit p p ' " g to insure that these basic'req uirements, ' , we.11 as all
other applicable, °re •uirements of CE
QA to re are .envnronment'al document
pp q ' r QA and City's local erivironment'al` :guidelines; are
scrupulously followed.
Section 13.0.0 of the City's. Environmental Guidelines states-that "a Final.EIR shall;.be prepared
to
my e sati
sfaction of the Dire
ctor to be.;n compliance with local and State requiremen .11
c ts... In
apac ty as Community Development'Director, assisted "by George White; Assistant Director,
Betsi Lewitter, Project Planner, andahe consultants retained by the City as an adjunct to
Community .Development,Department staff, we prepared the Petaluma Village Marketplace
Final 'SEIR,. including the .preparation o f the responses to all comments received on the Draft
EIR. Staff transmitted the results of our analysis of the Final'SEIR and our conclusions
regarding compliance with local and State requirements in. a. Memorandum to the Planning
Commission from Betsi Lewitter dated April 22;.2001. In this memo, staff recommended that
the Planning: Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council to certify the.Nialuma
Village Marketplace Final SEIR as adequate and in compliance with the City's.Environrimental
Review Guidelines and CEQA. Staff did not;recommend that additional information,for the
Final E
IR to be deemed adequate.and in compliance. with, local and State requirements'was
required in order for the Commission to, make this recommendation to the'City Council, and
therefore`,we did notinclude tliis recommendation in this memo. In our professional, judgment,
the :responses to comments in-. the FSEIR- are a good' faith, °reasoned analysis supported by factual
data, which,is tlie� standard required by CEQA (.Guidelines S'ection' 15003`(i)).
On April'22, the;Planning Commission heard 'the-presentation of the staff recomm'eridation„took
public testimony >on the FSEIR, asked question& of staff and consultants regarding, the contents of
the FSEIR and after' considering all -of the information in the record acted on the-
recommendation,to the City Council to certify the FSEIR -for the Petaluma'Village:Marketplace."
The Planning Commission ,performed its duties exactly as intended by CEQA :and the'CityI's!
Environmental. Guidelines.
Commissioner McAllister, in her April 25 `letter „has asked whether there is another option to
recommending or°not recommending certification of the as a flow chart 'in tl e- City's,
environmental guidelines indicates that the "Commissi'on:maycequest additional EIR work.”
As to the first part, of the question, the answer is ultimately that the Commission must "either '
recommend or'not recommend certification. Those are the. only two action choices provided` by
CEQA ard City's local guidelines. The. option to request ``additional impact information,
clarification or response to comment revisions" as-provided,in the flow chart. is not a, third
decision option, but,suggests the possibility of further analysis or modification to `the FinaII EIR
in order to get to a decision to recommend or not recommend certification.
I have to admit the revelation that language, allowing continued analysis, clarification or
p y's Environmental Guidelines, is a
res onseto a.Final EIR as stated in: the flow chart in the Crt
complete surprise: The actual, guidelines text, Section 13.0:0 starting7 on page 24 makes no,
reference to this additional processing step, and there is,ri mention or requirement; for such a
step in the �§tate CEQA Guidelines 'Even though the flow- chart is part of the adopted guidelines .
document, the written guidelines: are our, standard reference.regarding environmental review
procedures. However, it would be: pointless , to waste the` Commission's and our time debating
which language should ,really apply in this circumstance.: The. more important question.really is
what can be .accomplished by another round of comments and responses:
As you -know. the. CEQA.Guidelines, which are the final arbiter of any content'. or process issues,
establishes standards for determimngadequacy and the extent °to which the process,may be
extended: -for the purposexof further analysis. Relevant:Oiiidel" es sections to consider 'include:
15002(h): CEQA requires more than merely preparing :environmental documents The EIR itself •
does not control ;the way in;which a project can be „built or carried out Rather, when an' EIR
shows that a.project could adverse changes in'the environment, the
governmental agency must respond to- the information by one or more • of the "following methods:
(1) changing the proposed project,
(2) imposing conditions of approval. on.the proj ect;
(3) adopting g plans: es to control a broader of projects; to avoid adverse
• or ordinances
.
g
(4) choosing :an alternative way, y°o f meeting the �sarne need;
(5) disapprouing pioject;
(6) finding that changes in, or alterations.of the project.are.riot feasible;
(7)_ finding that unayoidable, significant environmental damage is acceptable as provided in
Section 15093.
15003(i): CEQA does notrequire technical perfection in- an iElR'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 is sufficient as
an informational.document:
15145: If, th :orough investigation, a�lead agency finds that a particular, impact is too
speculative for evaluation,. the agency'sho'uld note its conclusion.and terminate the discussion of
the impact.
15151: An EIR should be prepared •with of analysis'to provide decision-
. ecision,which intelligently takes account
makers with information�that;'enables them to'rnake a d
of environmental consequen i evalua of the environinentai.effects of. a proposed project .
need not be exhaustive but -the sufficiency of the EIR-Js to`be reviewed in the light of what is
reasonably feasible. Disagreement..amorig'experts does not make an EIR.inadequate, but the EIR
-should, summarize the,main;points� of disagreement.among the experts . Tl e-courts have not
p q.. Y p- g.
looked for erfection but for � 'uac corn leteness sand ood faithaeffort at disclosure.
Should ; the 'Commission choose to reconsider its' action to. recommend. certification of the FSEIR
and then proceed to require " EIRwo-rk", it must be done pursuant to the CEQA
Guidelines standard "of whatis reasonably feasible:" Our on giTiat recommendation on the
adequacy of e SEIR'itnlssiands,. We also believe that we.adequately.and in,go.od faith
answered the
' questions about the contents of'the document- at the meeting of April
22; and as a result of=thdi information, the: Planning Commission. made its recommendation to the
City Council. However, if the Commission desires additional clarification it would be very
helpful to staffif the Commissioners identify specific°respbnses to specific comments on
which they would like clarification, and we will endeavor to provide it. If the , Commission
t . _
desires' th at responses fo, comments be revised, we ask'.. , Commissioners to suggest specific
revisions.in the to .comments so, staff may advise the Commission as to:.whether these
revisions :are.reasonable and supported factual data.
Process' of lZeviewingthe'Proiect
Although the review of the CrEQA determination aril the:rev ew : - ftheproject are separate
actions governed a, separate ise't of guidelines and regulations, they are linked`by`virtue of the
requirement that "prior to approving a proj ect ,the lead agency shall certify that...the final EIR .
was presented'to the' decision- rnaking�body of the lead agency and that the decision- making body
reviewed and considered the; information contained in the final Ella priorto approving the
ro ect:" (CE' QA Guidelmes;'Secti6ri'15090 a 2 Except for Conditional Use: Permits and
Variances, the Planning Coiiuniss on is :a recommending body - to the City Council, and the City
Council has ~final decision - making authority. `While the Zoning :Ordinance sections pertaining to
Planned Community Districts (PCD) do prescribe the duties and responsibilities of the 'Planning
Commission a inreviewing and.actng on,: uchprojects that section ofthe Zoning Ordinance does
not discuss those decisions in the context of CEQA. •
Staff s position regarding the ability oftthe Planning, Commission to review the:,proposed:PCD
modification for the Petaluma Village Marketplace expansion is based on the premise; embodied
in Section 15090(a)(2) of the CEQA .Guidelines. If the Planning Commission is unable o
recommend to the City Council that the environmental document is adequate, then,it-,cannot
recommend. anything other than denial of the project because CEQA does not allow. Ahe City
CouncilAo act on the project when:it cannot make the findings that the EIR.is adequate: Our
position is 'also °intended to maintain the integrity and rationality of 'the development review
process. In other words where is the logic in`the Planning,Comrnission;taking a position to
recommend.against certifying a proj ect EIR - knowing that if the. Counci follows that
recommendation they cannot approve the project — and then moving onto. discuss the merits, of a
project that cannot be approved? If "the Planning Commission presumes that the City'Council, will
probably overturn the recommendation anyway then the •Commission undermines. the value of "'its
own roleinahe. review process by not giving the applicant and the City Council; the benefit of a
well reasoned.and responsible recommendation:
A_ recommendation to certify'the FSEIR.s not tantamount; to .recomnerrding approval `of the
project. The Commiss on.has complete discretion •when.reviewing.ihe;project. Norshould -the
Commission feel that it is limited° in its ablrtyto recommend conditions of approval •that may not
be. analyzed as,part of the EIR or that the, enforceability of 'conditions is somehow lessened
because issues are riot addressed in the EIR. The purpose of'CEQA is to jai alyze potential
impacts to the physical environment ,and does. not address' many issues that would :be subject to
the Commission's projec(purview, including; economics parking standards, building• design,
mixture of uses, emergency access, internal traffic circulation=; pedestrian and bicycle; access, etc':-
Reconsideration
The Planning Cornmission';s rules of procedure do riot address the-possibility of reconsideration.
p P
In the absence of anY s ecifed rocedure„ we`would recommend a two step process that will be
.scheduled' for - the Planning Coniinissioin;rrieeting,of 1VIay 27 in order to. allow.for public notice.,,
Reconsideration nwould require two steps, which will appeai on the May 27 agenda in the
following order:
1) Request by Commissioner `McAllister for reconsideration of the 'Planning Commission' °s
recommendation to the. City Council to; certify the Final Subsequent Environmental
Impact Report for the Petaluma Village Marketplace.
The. Commission will,have an opportunity to discuss the request to reconsi'der
recommendation and subj ect to a motionand' second to reconsider the recommendation, the
Commission will .then.vote n-the.request'to reconsider: If'the motion to reconsider fails, the pri g
recommendation to the Citv Counci'l,to 'certifv the FSEIR stands and_itern " #2, below. will notbe
necessary If a motion to reconsider is approved; the Commission will then proceed to:
2) Public Hearing on the reconsideration of the Planning Commission'si recommendation to
the, City Council to certify ,the e Final. Subsequent Einvironmei tal Impact Report for the
Petaluma Village,Marketplace.
4 .
u
Because we have .a request for reconsideration .by Commissioner McAllister, we have the time to
provide .public notice of the reconsideration in the event thafthe Planning :Commission votes to
° reconsider its'recomme
ndation. Othe we
determine whether. or not to reconsd
r and then, to wait.. for the Commission to
er , a n n, should the Commission decide to reconsider, set
the actual reconsideration for a subsequent meeting date.
This is being provided for your information as part of the agenda packet for. -the of May
13, 2003, but it is not onthe 'agenda for discussion on May, 13. Any questions regarding this
memo, the reconsideration process and the Planning Comm'ission's review of the- project (which
has already been continued to the' meeting of May 27) will be discussed at the. May 27, 2003
meeting. As always, if you have any specific questions on any of the contents of this memo,
please do not hesitate to contact me byphone or e -mail.
c: Mayor and City Council
Mike Bierman, ; City Manager
Rich Rudnansky,, City Attorney
George White, Assistant"Director, CDD
Betsi Lewitter, ProjectTlanner
John Courtney, Lamphier- Gregory
Brad Stipe, Chelsea:Property Group
Fred Etzel, Henn, Etzel. & Moore
David Keller
1 5
OPPORTUNITIES &CONSTRAINTS
for
If J 0VT "N , W� �V NIS 10 AM N , NO �
- - - - -- - -. -- -- - - -- - - -- . -_ -
G: \CIVIL \5 \557804 \dwg \0C.dwg, 8/8/2003 12:28:12 AM, leawf
�? � q roe
SHEET INDEX
SHT NO. DESCRIPTION
COV. COVER SHEET
1B PARCEL B - SLOPE ANALYSIS
2B PARCEL B - EXISTING VEGETATION ANALYSIS
3B PARCEL B - FLOODPLAIN AND WETLANDS ANALYSIS
4B PARCEL B - JURISTICTIONAL ANALYSIS
5B PARCEL B - COMPOSITE CONSTRANTS EXHIBIT
1C PARCEL C - SLOPE ANALYSIS
2C PARCEL C - EXISTING VEGETATION ANALYSIS
3C PARCEL C - FLOODPLAIN AND WETLANDS ANALYSIS
4C PARCEL C - JURISTICTIONAL ANALYSIS
5C PARCEL C - COMPOSITE CONSTRANTS EXHIBIT
CSW CSW /STUBER- STROEFI
g Petaluma
PETALUMA VILLAGE MARKETPLACE (PARCEL C)
\ ,
ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.
1C0 V
[st]Z ENGINEERS & PLANNERS
Sonoma
COVER SHEET
TEL 707) 7 tl Way, -11. ZOO, Vetaluma, CA 99959
TEL (]O]) ]95 -4>64 FAX (]O]) >95 -0516
California
CHELSEA PROPERTY GROUP
w.: i• -sv
Scale y«L rd„
s.naa
Ran Fk:
G: \CIVIL \5 \557804 \dwg \0C.dwg, 8/8/2003 12:28:12 AM, leawf
�? � q roe
i10
1 0
1.0
L x,
J
U.S. HIGHWAY 101
�,.
-_. Graphic Scale (In feet)
CSW /STUBER- STROEH Petaluma PETALUMA VILLAGE MARKETPLACE (PARCEL B) 1 Q
r z ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.- 1 u
L S ENGINEERS &PLANNERS 5 Sonoma SLOPE ANALYSIS
13- Red -ood way, s"' Soo. Petaluma, —'q ' Scale
TEL (707) - -a7— Eax pm) 7.s -o i California CHELSEA PROPERTY GROUP nee ssiw
G:\CIVIL\5\557804\dwg\1 B— SLOP E_ANALYSIS.dwg, 8/7/2003 4:45:31 PM, leawf
I.
1 0
i
U.S. HIGHWAY 101
7 -- . . .. ....... ........
tea. �, ��Il \\ \; \ �
Graphic Scale (In feet)
'F
7 - — — — — — — — — — -- — — — — --
------ -----
R.R.
...... ... ...
...........
.. .......
..... ...... ....... .....
N
. . . . ......
o;
44 j
Q rte - 1:�. I I Ili {I fi: i { �� f .q ', r T M1{ � �.�` , t '::��': ?1' .P :. ����'.�� --•1.
N
1 4,
A E
I
. ............
PARCEL
)<
. . ...... . ....
EXISTING VEGETATION LEGEND
If
TREES
O BRUSH
GRASS
OPPORTUNITIES & CONSTRAINTS EXHIBIT
- STROEH 6 Petaluma
C'S'T CSW/STUBER PETALUMA VILLAGE MARKETPLACE (PARCEL B)
[s� ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. — 1 2B
ENGINEERS & PLANNERS Sonorna EXISTING VEGETATION !
131 R.aw Wry, 5 — 200, PataIumm, CA 99954 CMifonnia CHELSEA PROPERTY GROUP
TEL (701) 795-1— FAX (707) 79S-OSJc, INS 1!7!M
Nn Re
I G:\CIVIL\5\557804\dwg\2B—EX—VEGETATION.dwg, 8/7/2003 6:35:55 PM, leawf
U.S. HIGHWAY 101 --
- - -- — — — -- — — - -
- - .i ce Graphic Sale (in feet)
1r ) QEL4PIE�TEO _. - - -�' _ - -_ ..._ -_ -- _ - - - -- -_ - - - ,i I'� \ \\ \ \
lREA - \ - - --- - - - - -- -\ - -_�� _ 100 -YR
.
-- _ R.R.
DELINEATED
" Cy`i -- - -- - ,'' ,. ` WETLAND \ r: ., t •��-��,� \ \ \
AREAS I •. \ \ \ \.
In
a;
: I N NN
\ t
{ _ c � / r:
�.�
*`�00- WSE 1 1 i ....� ..� / y `\\ �\ � \, �� 1 I �` � f ,.. ----`\ \\ \
� r . r• ` � \•\ `•.\ �`-' f �1/ I� �"_... �\� \�� \
A .EL
)
N
APE \_�
SCWA
PARCEL' 411, J _ .�-
/ ���_ tf :�� -'- __ �. - -. ���'��i• _ 100 -YEAR WATER SURFACE ELEVATION
, i s
__— • .
LOC ATION WATER SURFACE ELEV. i
MD OF IX UPSTREAM OF PARCEL D 21.6
MIDDLE Di O P VAUCF, AT BRIDGE 27.8
\ \ \ \\ (I 1� ' �' .� / ��•� / �'. /
NORTH
(RCEL ON OF CAPRI CREEK) 19.7
IMMEDIATELY GE OF BCEL PA B
NOTE:
j
TOO -YEAR WATER SURFACE ELEVA" IS B45ED ON INFORMATION
PRINDm BY PHILLP WALMMS k ASSOCMTES MEMORANDUM
DATED 17 1WLURY 2001.
DELINEATED
S
WETLAND AREA
W ETLAND
INFORMATION PROVIDED BY WEIUNDS DN(SULEANT
OPPORTUNITIES & CONSTRAINTS EXHIBIT
Ka TMa DwalPNOn OeIPM! Orwn QWa! ew2a u6e, prmon o/:
C SW CSW /STUSER- SfROEH $ Petaluma PETALUMA VILLAGE MARKETPLACE (PARCEL B)
ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.
[Sill ENGINEERS & PLANNERS SOn01Da FLOODPLAIN & WETLANDS ANALYSIS z:�'-w
Sale �
PN( (] 01) 79 5 -0516
TI!L (7 01) 7 7951 G 7 SulAe ]OO, Pe CA9.956 (aufomia CHELSEA PROPERTY GROUP +.9719.
TEL
an N4
\ \Ods2b\ data\ CIVIL \5\ 557804\ dwg \3B— FLOOD PLAIN— WETLAN DS. dwg, 8/7/2003 6:50:46 PM, leawf
1
- - -- -- -
1 ` 1 3010111 �• 1 1.1
- ..■�..I./II ■ ►■�It . AIIwIIwt. IrllRr►w..1 ■�ww1.. 11111 ww_. 1 ■A�nn�1■AII�Iwtlgw�,11w= �T� ■c ,����c� =s ��� mss`.
1/ . °- �,� ■■ ■ ■ ■ ■I■ err ■spiry. ■ ■— _r��.y1. ��� ■sir. ���■ — �� ;n �E. �N =r ?W_ �s s �
. ■!as ■ ?7� ■1��q'Sc5 ■ ■ ■ ■sx�� '� � ■■ � r9s� er r SIMON �� ■���� ■�a��3 ■ ■��� ■z�.�! ■gam= 15'� �+�
/1rsa� ■tws� _ss -■'1r' ��_r_ .+(�Irrrr(� ■ ■w ■� ss��� v� - -mss -s .�: °_ ���' =i_ ■�$ ■����d1►
-- I � _ 11 Imo_ ti. — ■11� — _1■I� � _ � +. .�
■
MIR
' INA, i
IN
r.
—�� 1 .'1 ■t ' /Ili /�
9
ire -:� _ $ ,�� ` , �� _��,,. ■■ �.y'�������r� �!.
` 11111/ � 11�■ ■� I .� �-- �i / ^��r'�
►S
I
\\Ods2b\data\CIVIL\5\557804\dwg\4B— JURISTICTIONAL— ANALYSIS.dwg, 8/7/2003 7:07:46 PM, leawf
100' SETBACK
FROM
TOP
OF BANK
150' SETBACK
FROM
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED PUBLIC
x
ACCESS RIGHT
OF WAY
OPPORTUNITIES & CONSTRAINTS EXHIBIT
csw CSW /STUBER- STROEH
Z ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.
ENGINEERS & PLANNERS
TEL Re6w 79 5 -47 Sulte 200, Vetalum•, CJ 94'54
T EL (707) 795 -9764 FAX (JO7) 79 5 -0516
b Petaluma
PETALUMA VILLAGE MARKETPLACE (PARCEL B)
JURISTICTIONAL ANALYSIS
CHELSEA PROPERTY GROUP
w a ro a
� 4
B
1 V
& I
Sonoma
r+a: r•sa
Scale
California
�
vn:ea.
Rlc 5.1>t.M
PIM fle:
\\Ods2b\data\CIVIL\5\557804\dwg\4B— JURISTICTIONAL— ANALYSIS.dwg, 8/7/2003 7:07:46 PM, leawf
0
U.S. HIGHWAY 101
' ..`. _
PROPOSED CIRCULATION ROA -
_._. --
& O,�L
TRjS( LIGNMENT
_ __ y am, ...: 5 _ ._ ... t �.� ?ww,. -•"; -� -
... _._ ". -. _ ..._ _........._..._. ._._:._. •� • .. ,, • - '_ - ..rv--- ;.,.F.c >�� - - - - '�''.$.' t -'. T • — . Vii.- �.— s - � i.. T �ti. _ _ �
.�. .'s ._.-. .,r, .• r. _ - __ - -- - _ - � �S'G• - - r.,, _'ice_ 41,
_.
ti
— " :•
r_ -�_ - - -_ -- -- -- ---- -- ---- -- --- ----- - - -- -- - - - - -- _ -- -- __ - -__ --- ______ --
P.V.P.O. B ING
�i�� I I I - . •. � t+: r+ \ -- I I ,,\ .
•
•
Graphic Scale (In feet)
R.R.
— � -_ I U; , _ , �. ' . o: .;' _ - .'� �. �� . ,+ � :\:.� �. �' . . • • tit' ' •'\.:: � °' �' \�
TON I ROAD
I .f 'P . POSE 61R LA r, �. !� ;,;'• \p .•'.?. \. \ \-
1RC. MENT) : i'•. I ? ::?. : : " '�
1
I _
,
I \\
I
- I• I f
a
III ,I j . � >�. II _ \
I
1 l
/ a H
/ J-
1.
� r I s
- . A .
'I.
-: II I
16•
• f
i
�D ?
# t• I.
r
t• a. 9 \
Q I-
, t
t
I
/
I
'PT . j
I
1. is
y .
i
t
1' G
{
-
I'
1
S C WA --
PARCEL'
1 •
LEGEND
D DEVELOPABLE AREAS
WITHOUT MITIGATION
DEVELOPABLE AREAS
WITH MITIGATION
UNDEVELOPABLE AREAS
OPPORTUNITIES & CONSTRAINTS EXHIBIT
R. ° ° °' ° ° °" °"" C Sw CsW /STUBER- STROEH Petaluma PETALUMA VILLAGE MARKETPLACE (PARCEL B) B
+� LJ
ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.
[S y Z ENGINEERS& PLANNERS Sonoma COMPOSITE CONSTRAINTS
( scale _,L
TEL ( 707) 795 oe WAY, 9uMe200. F'et707) ] 9 9.15 -OS984 California CHELSEA PROPERTY GROUP
TEL 70]J -9]84 - FAX 79S-D5 SS1tM
Pun x
\ \Ods2b\ data\ CIVIL \5\ 557804\ dwg \5B— COMPOSITE_CONSTRAINTS.dwg, 8/7/2003 9:03:19 PM, leawf
•
r1
LJ
LEGEND
0 — 15%
15% — 30%
30 %+
•
OPPORTUNITIES & CONSTRAINTS EXHIBIT
Cs"W CSW /STUBER- STROEH $ Petaluma PETALUMA VILLAGE MARKETPLACE (PARCEL C) y
ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. S
[ st] z ENGINEERS & PLANNERS Sonoma SLOPE ANALYSIS
Scale
131G Reaw Way, Su— 200, Petelum�, U 9195
TEL (707) 795-16. F nx (7G7) 795-0 Cafifomia CHELSEA PROPERTY GROUP Ift
G: \CIVIL \5 \557804 \dwg \1 C —SLOP E_ANALYS IS. dwg, 8/7/2003 6:29:01 PM, leawf
•
a
t.
(S
Graphic Sole (In feet)
✓de 'S . /�-- /r = j ��:.�' � �,. ...•, - - -- �..��..
I ^ �r 1tti _ ?�.:- - EXISTING VEGETATION LEGEND
y
JV _
TREES
--o�
BRUSH
GRASS
OPPORTUNITIES & CONSTRAINTS EXHIBIT
CSW CSW /STUBER- STROEH $ Petaluma PETALUMA VILLAGE MARKETPLACE (PARCEL C)
ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. 2C!
[St]' ENGINEERS & PLANNERS Sonoma EXISTING VEGETATION
sole �a.: �•.:Q
1310 aaawooa Way, sulfa 200, Petaluma C "9sq California CHELSEA PROPERLY GROUP
TEL (1.1) 195 -4161 FAX (101) 195 -0516 iMa l.5J9.M
Ulan fYa
\ \Ods2b\ data\ CIVIL \5\ 557804 \dwg \2C— EX— VEGETATION.dwg, 8/7/2003 6:42:02 PM, leawf
U.S. HIGHWAY 101
_
D'8. BDQBW 1O1
8
Graphi Scale (in feet)
�
00-YEAR WATER SURFACE ELEVATION
LOCATION WATER SURFACE ELEV (FT NCVD)
AIMEDIATEY UPSTREAM OF EL C 24.6
DGE CREEK) 23.
IMMEDIATELY DOWNSTREAM OF PARCEL 8 19.7
100-YEAR WATER SURFACE ELEWTION IS BASED ON INFORMATION
DATED 17 ANUARf 200t
DELINEATED
WETLAND AREA
OPPORTUNITIES & CONSTRAINTS EXHIBIT
CSW/STUBER-S g Petaluma PETALUMA VILLAGE MARKETPLACE (PARCEL C)
Csw ENGINEERING GROUP, INC. -
[St]2 ENGINEERS & PLANNERS Sonma 3C!
\\Odo2b\doto\C|V|L\5\557804\dwg\3C—FLOODPLA|N_VVETL4NDS.dwg. 8/7/2003 6:55:07 PM. |eowf
•
� 0
1 0
0"
®R
■ AN
ti
U.S. HIGHWAY 101
8
Graphic Scale (in feet)
r: nY Z
TO
BACK i1 V"
OF BA f
5E
SET GK
F R BACK
FR OF BANK
LANU
BANK
M ITT A-
N RTE 8.
77
"4 LEGEND
100' SETBACK FROM
�"A TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED PUBLIC
ACCESS RIGHT OF WAY
:;7a4�14
OPPORTUNITIES & CONSTRAINTS EXHIBIT
CSW/STUBER-STROEH
csw Petaluma PETALUMA VILLAGE MARKETPLACE (PARCEL C)
ENGINERING GROUP, INC.
[ 14C i
ENGIN EERS & PLANNERS Sonoma JURISTICTIONAL ANALYSIS Scale
1310— dWDV, Slit, 200, P—l—, 4
TEL (707) 795-47� F" (7o7) 795-516 California CHELSEA PROPER GROUP
\\Ods2b \data \C1V1L\5\557804\dwg \4C—JURISTICTIONAL—ANALYSIS.dwg, 8/7/2003 7:13:17 PM, leawf
8
Graphic Scale (In feet)
U .S. HIGHWAY 101 _ _________ —_ —__
i
�— P OP0 LATION ROAD \\
l �
d \
— — — -- —
d-
:.E
. y r. —• —r
r' t
4\ ti kr i
+'. 1 I _ _ __._.._ >_ _ . I mac_____ r • - '�___ _�•F-= rw.___ __ t"_- _ _ - ___
BUILDING ...LI�J
vl
a+ �.
r m
,+ r. ' /� \��" �� , \\ p {)F.! \ . f I ff� r: . ti ' r ;' 'x ,. \
C�, r \ \�F�1�TI BLAND J \\ �. - �.� -�-� � ,�.,;: r�•.'l•:• ., � .:�;
\
ii
_ -` � — i � :� tea_ ���' i �,- � _....- -_...- _
i `ma y =�f -
- LEGEND
--
- -��� DEVELOPABLE AREAS
L /\ WITHOUT MITIGATION
DEVELOPABLE AREAS
WITH MITIGATION
UNDEVELOPABLE AREAS
... .. .....
OPPORTUNITIES & CONSTRAINTS EXHIBIT
PETALUMA VILLAGE MARKETPLACE (PARCEL C) aRa� i
COMPOSITE CONSTRAINTS =p
$Cale ven: cane
CHELSEA PROPERTY GROUP
!"t C��IT CSW /STUBER- STROEH $ Petaluma
C .7 YY Z ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.
[St] ENGINEERS & PLANNERS Sonoma
1310 RaEw Way, —te 200, Gataluma, G 9,95-0
TEL (707) 795 -4764 F1X (707) 795 -0516 California
G: \CIVIL \5\ 557804\ dw 9\5C COMPOSITE_CONSTRAINTS.dwg 8/7/2003 9:14:21 PM, leawf