HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 07/24/2000 (2) SI
'FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE PROPOSED PETALUMA
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT
SCR Nurribbit: .2000102125
Prepared by the
PETALUMA COMMUNITY. DEyELOPMENT COMMISSION
and
Wi2tGSTAFF,AND'ASSOCIATES
Urban.and' Environmental Plahners
t . •
April 2001
Wp511.6111FEIAIOVEn.611
Petaluma CBD Redevelopment Plan Amendment - Final EIR
Petaluma Community Development Commission Contents
, April 13, 2001 Page i
CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Relationship Between DER and FEIR 1-1
1.2 Proposed Project 1-1
2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR 2-1
2.1 Index to All Comments Received 2-2
2.2 Responses to Comments 2-11
3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR 3-1
o
WP51161 I I FEI RI CONTENTS.611
• Petaluma CBD Redevelopment Plan Amendment Final EIR
Petaluma Community Development Commission Contents
April 13, 2001 Page ii
•
WP511611I FEI RI CONTENTS.611
Petaluma CBD Redevelopment Plan Amendment Final EIR
Petaluma Community Development Commission 1. Introduction
April 13, 2001 Page 1-1
1. INTRODUCTION
•
1.1 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DEIR"AND FEIR
In conformance with the California Environmental Quality.Adt,(CEQA) Guidelines (1999)
section 15132 (Contentsof Environmental Impact Reports),the Final Environmental Impact
Report (FEIR)for the proposed Petaluma Central Business:District,Redevelopment Plan
Amendment consists of two volumes: (1) the January 10,2001 Draft EIR, which was
distributed for public review and comment on January 24, 2001; and (2) this April 2001 Final
EIR document, which incorporates the Draft EIR by this reference, and includes responses to
comments received by the Lead Agency (the Petaluma Community Development Commission)
during the public review period on'the Draft EIR, plus a set of revisions made to the Draft EIR
in response to comments received during the public review period. None of these revisions
includes an increase in the significance of any impacts ora significant new impact, mitigation,
or alternative not already considered in preparing the Draft EIR.
Certification of this Final EIR by the.Petaluma Community Development Commission (PCDC)
must occur prior to adoption of the Redevelopment Plan Amendment by the PCDC and
Petaluma City Council.
1.2 PROPOSED PROJECT
Pursuant to California Community Redevelopment.Law (California Health and Safety Code
Section 33000 et seq.), the Petaluma Community Development,Commission (PCDC), as
governing board of the Petaluma Redevelopment Agency,in cooperation with the City of
Petaluma, is proposing to adopt and implement the Petaluma,Central Business District (CBD)
Redevelopment Plan Amendment as,a means of continuing and expanding the PCDC's
current central area econoniic,development activities. The proposed "project" includes the
following primary actions: (1) expansion of the approximately 98-acre existing CBD project
area boundary, the "Existing Area," to encompass two contiguous "Added Areas" totalling
approximately 12Tacres--a'10-acre Added Area A to the west and a 11.7-acre Added Area B
to the east; (2) extension of the time limitations applicable to the existing.CBD redevelopment
plan for carrying out redevelopmentactions, collecting tax increment revenue, incurring debt,
and exercising eminent domain authority (on non-residential uses only); and (3) a cap on the
dollar limitations (tax increment and,debt) of the CBD redevelopment plan.
The plan amendment and its implementation are intended to improve those physical and
economic conditions in the expanded project area that cannot reasonably be expected to be
reversed or alleviated by private.enterprise or governmental action, or both, without
WP5116111 FEIRI F-1.611
Petaluma CBD Redevelopment Plan Amendment Final EIR
Petaluma Community Development Commission 1. Introduction
April 13, 2001 Page 1-2
redevelopment. The added redevelopment actions would be intended to continue,and expand
the PCDC's current'efforts to assist and stimulate private development within the enlarged
redevelopment area, which in turn would be expected to generate the additional tax increment
funding needed to fund redevelopment actions. As required by California Community
Redevelopment Law, a portion of the tax increment revenue from the expanded project area
would also be.allocated to the provision of affordable housing.
This brief summary should not be relied upon fora thorough understanding of the proposed
project. Please,refer to Chapter 3 (Project`Description) of the January"2001 Draft
Envirdnniental'Impact Report-for the Petaluma Central,Business District.Redevelopment Plan
Airiendment'fiora,more complete description of the proposed redevelopment program.
WP511611I FEIRI F-1.611
Petaluma CBD Redevelopment Plan Amendment Final EIR
Petaluma Community Development Commission 2. Responses to.Comments on the Draft EIR
April 13, 2001 Page 2-1
2. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
After completion of^the DraftEIR,the Lead Agency(the PCDC) is required under CEQA
Guidelines sections 15088 and 15686 to consult with and obtain comments from other public
agencies having jurisdiction by law with respect to the project,and to provide the general
public with an opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR. Under CEQA Guidelines section
15088, the Lead Agency is also required to respond in writing to substantive environmental
points raised in this Draft EIR':review:and consultation process.
The Draft ER, dated January 2001, was distributed for public review and comment on
January 24, 2001.. The required 45-day public review period on the Draft EIR also began on
January 24, 2001.
Comments received:on the Draft ER during'the 45-day public review period were.submitted in
the form of oral comments by<members-of the Planning,Commission during their February 27,
2001 meeting, and three letters received by the PCDC, including one from Derek J. Simmons,
attorney at law, representing Jerico Products, datedMarch 9, 20b01, one form the State of
California Departmentof Toxic Substances Control, dated March 7, 2001, and one form the
State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR), dated March 12, 2001.
In addition, one letter containing comments on the Draft EIR was received from the State of
California Department.of Transportation (Caltrans), District-4, dated March 19, 2001, after the
close of the 45-day public review period.
This Response to Comments chapter indludesthe'following subsections:
• an index to comm ents;received during the Draft FIR public review period (section
2.1), which lists the persons and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR during the
45-day public review period, assigns a code number to each substantive comment
raised, and provides a summary indication of the comment issue;
• an index to comments received after the close of the Draft pR public review period
(also in section 2.1), which lists-the person and public agency commenting on the Draft
EIR after the close of the 45-day public review period, assigns a code..number to each
substantive comment raised, and provides a summary indication of the comment issue;
and
• a responses to comments;section (section 2.2), which includes the minutes of the
February 27, 2001 Planning Commission meeting, and copies of the four letters received,
followed by the responses-of the EIR authors to each comment pertaining to EIR content
and adequacy; Each substantive comment raised is coded in the right margin of the
minutes and,letters. The responses to the various coded comments follow the minutes
and letters.
WP5116111 FEl R I F-2.611
Petaluma CBD Redevelopment Plan Amendment Final EIR
Petaluma Community Development Commission 2. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
April 13, 2001 Page 2-2
2.1 INDEX TO ALL'COMMENTS RECEIVED
Response
Name/Agency Code Issues and Concerns
1. Planning Commission Minutes (Regular Meeting of February 27, 2001):
A number of the.Commissioners'comments omthe Draft'EIR were adequately.resoonded to at the
meeting. Commissioner comments,coded below are limited to those which'warrant additional
written response"s;and/or revisions to the EIR.
Commissioner Vouri 1.01 Will the'Tree Advisory Committee or publibbe
allowed to comment.on the eucalyptus trees (re:
Mitigation 9-1 for possible loss of one or more
landmark eucalyptus treeszalong Copeland Street)?
Commissioner Vieler 1.02 Could visual mitigations be expandedao,indicate
Planning Commission review (in addition to the
DEIR reference to SPARC review)?
Commissioner Vouri 1.03 DEIR includes no reference'to parking garages in
public'facilities/infrastructure section; add parking
garages to this section.
Commissioner Monteschio 1.07 Concern thatno one will want to becdowntownwith
added traffic, fire concerns, noise and air quality
concerns.
CommissionerMontescfiio 1.04 Add tax credits for historic property rehabilitation.
Commissioner Glass 1.05 Infrastructure findings are not enough. Put more
money"into traffic mitigation.
Commissioner Vouri 1.06 Change DEIR wording,of Draft Central.Petaluma
Specific Plan to "and otherversions."'
Police and fire mitigations are not mitigations.
For eucalyptus trees on Copeland, public and Tree
Committee should be notified as'well as certified
arborist recommendation to Tree Committee.
Add mitigations to satisfy,lobal lead agency.
Address air quality impacts.due to construction--add,
"not to exceed State and Federal standards:"
Add shared parking garages to mitigation.
W P511611 I FE I R I F-2.611
- C
Petaluma CBD Redevelopment Plan Amendment Final EIR
Petaluma Community Development Commission 2.. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
April 13, 2001 Page 2-3
a . Commissioner Broad 1.08 Need to make-sure land use/visual mitigations are in
place; strugglingwith in=fill,projects; there are
inadequate tools to review projects; make measures
a as strong as possible in these areas; should not
minimize that there are regional impacts.
Commissioner Vieler 1.10 Part of traffic congestion impact would be addressed
with the addition of parking structures (as
mitigation). Parking and emergency response are
issues.
Review Period Letters:
2. Derek J. Simmons, 2,01, Friends of Mammoth case cited; "folly and illegality"
Attorney at Law, Santa currently laid out in redevelopment plan and ER.
Rosa, CA, representing
Jerico Properties; March 2.02 DEIR does not address fiscal effects on affected
9, 2001 taxing;entities.and-associated secondary physical
(environmental) impacts.
-2.03 DEIR does not discuss effects of last 25 years of
existing redevelopment;program.
2.04 Effects of redevelopment in "squeezing out" "mom-
and-pop" home grown-operations; DEIR does not
discuss such displacement-impact except in the
case of eminent domain.
2:05 DEIR does not discuss not granting power of
eminent domain as a mitigation measure.
2:06 DEIR does not discuss dislocation of existing uses
as a result of redevelopment fostered introduction of
incompatible'uses.
2:07 DEIR does not discuss impacts of redevelopment
activities in squeezing,out existing uses made
incompatible with new Uses moving in Under the
redevelopment plan.
2.08 Unlike other types of El Rs, an EIR on a
redevelopment plan EIR;prohibits•any'future
environmental review of-specific projects within the
redevelopment,plan. To do this before the General
Plan process now underway is completed and a
new General Plan is adopted,;and before anew
specific plan is in place seems strange. DEIR does
not understand the requirements of CEQA for
redevelopment plans; and thus does not comply with
the requirements of CEQA.
WP5116111FEIRIF-2.611
Petaluma CBD Redevelopment Plan,Amendment Final EIR
Petaluma Community Development Commission 2. Responses to Comments on the DrafVElR
April 13, 2001 Page 2-4
2.09 Friends of'Mammoth caseesupersedes Program
EIR Authority"--CEQA section 15168--described in
DEIR Appendix 21.1. Court has found that section
15168 and other CEQA;guidelinesfare internally
inconsistent This ER is ''just;like" the DEIR that
was the subject of the Mammothtcase--i.e., is
general rather than detailed.: The:Friends of
Mammoth case indicates that 'fd]designating an EIR
as,a program EIR does not by itself decrease the
level of analysis otherwise required`in tf a EIR'," and
indicates that an EIR must be,specific and detailed
and.nota decreased "broad-based" analysis.
Contrary to law, the DEIR':is "broad'-based:" The
DEIR does not understand the requirements of
CEQA for redevelopment plans, and does not
comply with CEQA.
2:10 Appendix 21.1, Program ER Authority; indicates,
that DEIR was written either in ignorance or in total
disregard for the requirements of the law for
redevelopment EIRs laid down•in Friends,of
Mammoth. DEIR statement;."rather than CEQA-
required environmental review of such subsequent
individual actions to approve individual projects] will
be undertaken at a later time "is directing contrary to
the law spelled out by the Court in Friends of
Mammoth."
2.1.1 DEIR never'acknowledges that entire redevelopment
planrand not just the redevelopment area;must;be
consistent with the adopted,General Plan and,with
the adopted Specific Plan covering the same area.
2.12 DEIR strangely describes "worst case" as a scenario,
where redevelopment plan is fully successful'in
eliminating blight and redevelopment plan area is
developed to greatest intensity permissible under
yet to be drafted let alone;approved General Plan
and the,assumed adoption of the Central Area
Specific Plan;andsubsequentamendment: But
Transportation and.Circulation section adopts.a less
than "worst case" scenario by assuming that all
planned state, county and city transportation
improvements;willrbe in place: This is not "worst
case." The:DEIR does not understand the
requirements of CEQA; the DEIR does not comply
with CEQA.
•
WP511611I FEI R I F-2.611
Petaluma CBD Redevelopment Plan Amendment Final EIR
Petaluma Community Development Commission 2. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
April 13, 2001 Page 2-5
•
2:13 DEIR assumed improvement of Highway 101 to six
lanes will not occur,by2015; DEIR assumption that
it will is wrong.
2.14 General Plan does not identify using redevelopment
as an implementation program.
2.15 Referring to DEIR page 1-3, this particular use of a
program EIR'is contrary to CEQA.
- 1
'2.16 Re: DEIR page 1-4, this particular use of tierring is
contrary to Friends of Mammoth.
2.17 Re: DEIR page 1.-5, impact analysis is not "worst
case" as EIR suggests. No discussion of no project
or scenario where plan spends taxpayers money
and is unsuccessful.
2.18 Re: DEIR'page;1-5, no discussion in DEIR
regarding impacts of proposed intense development
of uses listed on this page in an area currently
zoned and characterized by industrial uses,
including river-dependent industrial uses.
2.19 Re: page 1-5, no discussion about development of
residential, retail and other commercial or mixed
uses on the riverfront adjacent to or across from
existing river-dependent uses.
2.20 Re: page 1-5, DEIR correctly defines baseline here,
but does not use current data throughout EIR to
describe what,the baseline is. For example, traffic
data is outdated, and there is no discussion of local
or regional impact of increased electricity usage.
2.21 Re: page 1-8, the DEIR is required to discuss the
secondary impacts of known fiscal_issues, including
the-secondary impacts of de-funding other taxing
entities.
2.22 Re: DEIR-pages 3-1 to 3-3, no discussion
supporting DEIR assumption that redevelopment will
• eliminate blight in next 15 years. Existing
redevelopment'plan has been unsuccessful at
eliminating blight. The continuing existence of blight
is a baseline issue!, Baseline blight should be
compared with blight that existed 25 years ago. No
discussion of how blight elimination can be solely
attributable to tax-increment financing in order to
WP511611IFEIRIF-2.611
Petaluma CBD Redevelopment Plan Amendment Final EIR
Petaluma•Community Development Commission 2. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
• April 13, 2001 Page 2-6
have evidence supporting DEIR assumptions, which
therefore "seem silly on their face."
2:23 Re: DEIR,pages 3-4 to 3-5; no discussion re:: what
blight elimination between 1976and,now can be
directly and totally attributable to'the redevelopment
program..
2:24 Re: DEIR pages 3-7 to 3.10, no discussion to
support the conclusion that anticipated;
redevelopment actions would not occur,without tax
increment financing, and no discussion of
environmental impacts of government;:actions by
affected taxing entities that will not occur. 'There is
no discussion in DEIR of these issues,under the "no
project"alternative, or under."worst case scenario"--
i.e., one as unsuccessful las the existing'
redevelopment plan to not have completed:its
existing Work over the last 25 years.
2.25 There is no discussion in DEIR of these issues
under the "no project" alternative, or under "worst
case scenario"--i.e., one as unsuccessful as4the
existing redevelopment plan:to not have
its existing,work over the last25years.
2.26 Re: DEIR page 3-11, no discussion here or
elsewhere in DEIR of environmental impacts of
project-related diversion of funds from,other
government activities to non-physical improvement
redevelopment activities such as marketing,.
administration, consultant fees, etc.
227 Re: DEIR,page 3-11, DEIR does not discuss
environmental impacts or go into non-physical
activities (marketing, consultants).
No discussion of fees paid to professionals and
bond brokers and to servicing debt No discussion
of environmental impacts created by governmental.
actions that will not,occur because of allocation of
funds to these non-physical improvement activities.
2.28 Friends of Mammoth cited again; DEIR failure to
follow that law.
2.29 .DEIR does not describe impacts on Jerico Products;
Jerico Products values as a local river dependent
use and contributor to river navigability not
described; DEIR does not describe environmental
impact of losing Jerico Products.
14/P5116111FEIRIF-2611
Petaluma CBD Redevelopment Plan Amendment Final EIR
Petaluma Community Development Commission .2. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
April 13, 2001 Page 2-7
2.30 No discussion of environmental impact if river is not
dredged.
2.31 No discussion on DEIR page 4-4 or anywhere else
of the necessity/desirability of adding,Area B, or if
the environmental impacts of Area B is not included.
2.32 DEIR seems to be stating that Jerico Products is an
example of blight.
2.33 Area B is included for tax'base reasons; this is not
discussed in the DEIR. The environmental effects
associated with including Added Area B, and the
resulting pressure to drive Jerico Products out of
Added Area B; not described in the DEIR.
2.34 DEIR listing of pertinent policies in selected; cited
additional policies are missing.
2.35 Re: DEIR section 4.3.1(a), development of the
project area with commercial, retail and residential
uses wili.;disrupt the physical arrangement of the
community and is incompatible with existing land
use in the vicinity.
2.36 Re: DEIR page 4-7,no substantial evidence that
redeveloped plan is consistent with General Plan.
2.37 Re: DEIR page 4-8; comment questions support for
basing DEIR assumptions on unadopted Central
Area Specific.Plan. How can timing,analysis be
based in documents that are hot adopted.
2.38 Re: DEIR page 4-9, DEIR does not discuss that
General Plan does not include use of redevelopment
as implementation:
2.39 Re: DEIR page 4-11, DEIR does not describe
project business displacement impact not associated
with eminent domain.
2.40 Re: DEIR page 4-12, no discussion of offsite
environmental impacts:of.displacement of river-
' dependent industry such as Jerico Products,
including impact on Highway 101 of increased truck
traffic of river transport; and impacts on local
agricultural economy.
WP51161.11FEIRIF-2.611
Petaluma CBD Redevelopment Plan Amendment Final EIR
Petaluma Community Development Commission 2. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
April 13, 2001 Page 2-8
2:41 Re: DEIR page 4-13, clarify meaning of"add
viability`and interest" to Added Areas A and B;
Mitigation 4.2.1 and its implementation vague.
2.42 Re:. DEIR page 4-13, Land use incompatibility
issues discussed in DEIR need to be viewed as
"receptor" impacts of new uses:on existing uses
rather than vice versa. Example mitigation
approaches: prohibitions on incompatible new uses
in airport approach zones; right-to-farm ordinance
protection of existing agricultural uses from future
nuisance complaints rom new incompatible
residential and other uses.
2.43 Environmental impacts of mixed use zones not
addressed in DEIR. Mixed use concept goes
against basic nuisance avoidance purpose of
zoning; promotes inherently incompatible uses
through assumption that incompatibilities can be.
addressed. Impacts of mixed use not described:in
EIR.
2.44 Re: DEIR page 4-15, concept of future impact
review wrong under CEQA;'Friends..of Mammoth
cited.
2.45 Re: DEIR page 5-5, no discussion in EIR of
environmental impacts of gentrification. Criticisms
of redevelopment concept and expenditures cited.
2.46 Re: DEIR pages 6-1 to 6-14 (Transportation) refer
to "General Comments" above.
2.47 Re: DEIR;pages:6-14 to 6-15, lack of evidence
supporting future transportation improvement
assumptions.
2.48 Re: DEIR pages 7-5 to 7-6: DEIR assumes that
traffic matters can only get worse, contrary to
CEQA. What happens if redevelopment-facilitated
development:occurs without these transportation
improvements.
2.49 Re: DEIR page:7-11, no discussion of impacts on
schools from proposed added areas. State-
mandated pass-through fees do not justify
conclusion;that there will be no significant impacts.
No evidence to support "less than significant"
conclusion.
W P51161:11 FEI R I F-2.611
n
Petaluma CBD Redevelopment Flan Amendment Final EIR
Petaluma Community Development Commission 2. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
April 13, 2001 Page 2-9
2.50 Re: DEIR page 7,13, how can existing park
deficiencies.be ameliorated through payment of
fees. No evidence to support conclusion that deficit
park-situation will not be made worse;park fee
funds not enough to overcome existing deficits.
2.51 Re: DEIR page 8-41to 8-6: Distinction between
east and west side of river in Added Area B not
discussed. There are dramatically different impacts
on the two sides of the river. Visual "blight" occurs
only on west side-of the river.
3. Terry Roberts, Senior 3.01 State-required 45-day public review period on DEIR
Planner, State closed on March 9, 2001; comments from all state
Clearinghouse, agencies received during that period attached
Governor's Office of (Departmentof Toxic Substances Control); lead
Planning and Research; agency compliance with State Clearinghouse DEIR
March 12, 2001 review requirements acknowledged.
4. Barbara J. Cook, P.E., 4.01 Past disturbance of project area land by agricultural
Chief, Northern activities presents potential for hazardous
California-Coastal substances release into the environment. Modify
Cleanup Operations report to include whether release or threatened
Branch, Department of release of hazardous substances poses a significant
Toxic Substances threat.
Control; March 7, 2001
4.02 If hazardous substances have been released, they
will need"to be addressed; e.g:, if remediation
activities include need for soil excavation,.EIR
should identify,secondary impacts (air, dust, noise,
removal impacts, etc.).
The following letters were
received after the close of .
the DEIR public review
period:
5. Terry Roberts, Senior 5.01 Letter transmits letterfrom Caltrans (letter #6 herein)
Planner, State which was received by Clearinghouse after the end
Clearinghouse, of the state review period, indicating that CEQA
Governor's Office'of does not,require lead agencies to respond to such
Planning.and Research; late comments but that commentsshould be
March 22, 2001 included in Final EIR for consideration prior to taking
a final action on the proposed redevelopment plan
amendment.
6. Harry Y. Yahata, District 6.01 Copy of 1999-Central Specific Plan Traffic
Director, Caltrans District Study requested.
4; March 19,2001
WP5116111FEfRIF-2.611
Petaluma CBD Redevelopment PIan,Amendment Final EIR
Petaluma.Community Development Commission 2. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
April 13, 2001 Page 2-10
6:02 DEIR page 6-16 says six intersections are projected -
to.fall below City LOS standard. There are 11
intersections in Table 6.3 that have LOS of D or
lower; please clarify.
6.03 Please provide geometric layout,of Mitigation 4.4.1
fortaftrans review. Does description on DEIRRpage
6=18(mean through traffic is not allowed from the
Southern crossing connection to US 101
southbound?
6.04 Proposed Caltrans improvements to US 101 1SR 116
bridge and widening of US 101 to six lanes from
State.Route 37 to Old Redwood Highway
interchange noted.
•
WP511611 IFEIRIF-2.611
Petaluma CBD Redevelopment,Plan Amendment Final EIR
Petaluma Community Development Commission 2. Re§porises to Comments on the Draft EIR
April 13, 2001 Page 2-11
2.2 .RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
The following section includes minutes of the February 27, 2001 Planning
Commission meeting and reproductions of the-three letters received
during the 45-day Draft EIR public review period and two letters received
after the close of the,Draft EIR public review period, each immediately
followed by the Lead Agency's (PCDC's) comments therein pertaining to
the content and adequacy of the Draft EIR. These:comments and
responses are correlated by code numbers added to the right margin of
the minutes and letters.
W P511611I FE!R I F-2.611
Petaluma CBD Redevelopment Plan Amendment Final EIR
Petaluma Community Development Commission 2. Responses to Comments on the.Draft EIR
April 13, 2001 Page 2-12
J
WP5116111FEIRIF-2.611
Rpr 10 01 04: 02p CITY OF PETALUMA 7077784317 p. 2 t•13
I
see
Ci°Pof Petaluma, California
f+ j? City Council Chambers
Qi r City Ball, 4 English Street
f$�:>rc; Petaluma,CA 94952
�
� , a ..
Telephone 707/Z78-4301 f.Faz.707/778-4498
2859 E-Mail piannimaci:aetatuma.cs us
Web Page htty://www.ci':petahtma.ca.us
1
2 DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes
3 February 27, 2001 7:00.PITS
4
5 Commissioners: Present: Barrett.Broad*,Glass,Monteschio,O'Brien,Vieler,Vouri
6
7 * Chair
8
9 Staff: Mike Moore,Community Development Director
10 Jan Tolbert,Administrative Secretary
11
12
13 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
14 PUBLIC COMMENT: Susan Zanotti 1420 Sarkesian,Representing Eastside Neighborhood Alliance
15 — thanks for listening to concerns regarding Salvation Army —requested more time (past March 27th
16 meeting)_
17 DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Work Program for completion of EIR and General Plan; reminder —
18 workshops with Tom Jacobsen
19 COMMISSIONER'S REPORT: Commissioner Vieler—(to,Mike Moore)—What about other issues in
20 Specific Plan area regarding Basin Street?'How can this be accomplished/agendized for action?'Mike
21 Moore — Listed on March 5t° City Council Agenda (listed more generally — still discussing adth City
22 Attorney); not specific to Basin Street application at this time Commissioner Vieler — City Council
23 specifically agreed how this was to be agendized/discussed..Mike Moore — there are due process/legal
24 issues still to be determined
25 CORRESPONDENCE:None:
26 APPEAL_STATEMENT: Was read.
27 LEGAL RECOURSE STATEMENT: Was read.
28
29
30 NEW BUSINESS:
31 PUBLIC HEARINGS:
32
33 I. CBD Project Area Amendment EIR: Planning commission review of the second
34 amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Central Business District:Redevelopment
35 Project and review and. comment on the redevelopment plan amendment Draft
36 Environmental Impact Report(DEIR).
37
Apr 1001 04:02p CITY OF PETALUMA 7077784317 P. 3 tr/P
DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES-2/27101
I Paul Maras tel a-Direc or o of E ononlic Development'Redevelopment - This expansion/study was
2 —�
Commission last year; review' of ER and proposed amendments to
3 redevelopment plan requested. 'Introduced°Mark Sullivan Siefel Consulting and John Wagstaff (EIR
4 author); City Attorney wrote Draft^Redevelopment Plan; here to answer questions,-ask for support of
5 Comniission.
6 Commissioner Monteschio-The CPSP and CBD'maps donor match,--why?
7 Paul Maraagella-Some areas are not+inthis existing project area,but in the same redevelopment area.
8 Mark—Sullivan.-CPSP area contained;with'CBD/or CPSP area-one small area taken out(Turning Basin
9 area)has urbanization requirement
10 Commissioner,Monteschio-How was'it determined;what areas would in the plan?
11 Mark Sullivan—;Intent alongiPetaluma Blvd. Was',to-take in'area/uader:tilized.
12 Commissioner.Monteschio-Can you explain"tax:pass through"?
13 Mark Sullivan - Base value for entire area; taxes paid on incremental growth - taxes go to
14 redevelopment area.
15 Commissioner.Monteschio-Why is eminent domain being used this time and not last?
16 Mark Sullivan,- City does.not have plans at this time to user eminent domain; but.could in the future-
17 not to.be used,on residential properties.
18 Mike Moore - Eminent domain is there as a tool if needed - also includes process/hearing, legal.
19 determination procedure,some property ownersprefef,this?because of possible tax advantages:
20 Commissioner Monteschio-Tax advantages regarding historic;preservation?
21 Mark Sullivan-That's•a good point;other mechanisms for housing tax credits,,etc:
22 Commissioner Glass-Danger in causing problems for School Districts-revenues should he'released to
23 Schools.
24 Mark Sullivan - Schools are a special case:- will not lose any revenues; full amount-per student still
25 paid.
26 Paul Maraagella-As'part of due diligence,,Attorney for School District actually;prefers this.
27 Commissioner Vouri - (to Mark SulhVan)' - Has Planning Department received any complaints
28 regarding being included in pro1Sct area?
29 Paul Maraagella-Has held three citizen meetings,three notices; minutes of these Meetings were given
.30 to Planning- Commission; meetings have been great - cosponsored by Chamber of Commerce and
31 Downtown Merchants Assoeiation.
32
33 The public hearing was:opened.
34
35 There were no speakers.
36
37 The public`hearing was,closcd.
38
39 Commissioner Vouri-(to John Wagstaff-Will the Tree Advisory Committee or public be allowed to
40 comment on the:Eucalyptus trees?
41 John Wagstaff-That can be added if appropriate. 1. 01
42 Commissioner Vouri-Questions regarding emissions increases atbuildout.
45 Chair
� artisan - Queeson aregaedin is dons i cumulatively,overan emissions snipwill drop.
44 C Broad uestions regarding lbs.pert'
43 Jahn Wa tuff Q eshold`ig8 g draft miflgafion measures=;land use impacu/land use separation -
e?
46 John Wagstaff-Cih;'sdevelopmentreview process willassare this-CPSP processwill assure this.
47 Chair Bread.- Regarding visual factors- Water Street;-,current SPARC Design Guidelines - specific
48 policies to be relied on-this plan has not been adopted;how can this be incorporated?
;Apr 10 01 04: 03p CITY OF PETALUMA 7077784317 p. 4
DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES-2/27/01 4 7
1 John Wagstaff If not adopted, then adopt into SPARC,Design Guidelines; if Specific Plan is not
2 adopted,then SPARC Guidelines need to be revised(witl itfnext I'S years):
3 Commissioner Vieler - Mitigations structured through SPARC - why no mention of Planning
4 Commission involvement? Why aren't land use critena not referred to Planning Commission?
5 John Wagstaff-Visualimpacts only referred to SPARC,
6 Chair Broad-Could mitigation measure be crafted to indicate Planning;Commissionreview? I
7 John Wagstaff-Yes,that could be included. .02.
8 Chair Broad-Regarding constructionnoise?Current language in Zoning Ordinance?
9 Mike Moore- Yes, language'is from Municipal Code; Planning Commission has,further limited this on
10 occasion.
11 Commissioner Yowl - Regarding the Elk (public facilities/infrastructure) no reference to parking j
12 garages-add parking garagestothis,section.
13 Commissioner Monteschio-Add tax:credits for historic:property rehabilitation(also Mills Act). 1,0+
14 Commissioner Glass-Infrastructure findings,are not enough_put more money into traffic mitigation.
15 Commissioners Barrett,O'Brien-No additional comments. 105
16 Chair Broad Well organized document-photos good.help in understanding.
17 Commissioner Vouri Change uottiing=from Draft CPSP•to"'and,other;versions; regarding Police and 146,
18 Fire-these are not mitigations; Eucalyptnstrees on Copeland-,public nad Tree Committee;to be notified'
19 as well as a certified.arboristfto:make a recommendation to Tree Committee: add mitigations to satisfy
20 local lead agency; address air quality due to construction -.add "not to exceed State and Federal
21 Standards' shared parking:garages added to this mitigation.
22 Commissioner Vieler-Would eminent domain allow demolition of blighted buildings?
23 Paul Marangella-No properties have been identified for eminent domain;taxing agencies have to know
24 that there is blight in this area.
25 Mike Moore- City already has authority to make (unsafe)-URM,determinations; URM and eminent
26 domain are two different issues;eminent domain can only brused for a public purpose.
27 Commissioner Monteschio-How can we do localized elements-must be looked at regionally; no one I /M
28 will want to be downtown with added traffic; fire concerns; traffic infrastructure, noise, air quality `�
29 concerns.
30 Chair Broad-Need to make sure landuse/visual mitigation measures are.in place;struggling with in-fill 1 08
31 projects; inadequate tools to review projects,make measures:as strong aspossible in these areas; should
32 not minimize that these are regional impacts.
33 Commissioner Vouri-(to Commissioner Monteschio)How should these;issues be handled in EIR?
34 Commissioner Monteschio-Would like real traffic mitigations,noted;real timelines. 1.09
35 Commissioner Vouri-This.would,be a huge task. •
36 Commissioner Vieler - Part of congestion addressed with addition of parking structures; 1 1 0
37 parking/emergency response are issues.
38 Chair Broad (to Mike Moore) -Is Wagstaff doing EIR on CPSP? (Answer-yes:) Will CPSP EIR be a
•
39 `program ErR7'? Will Planning Commission have another chance;to comment on scoping;.session for
40 CPSP?
41 John Wagstaff-Yes;?lathing Commission could chair,a scoping session for CPSP EIR.
42 Mike -May have already:done a scoping session on this
43 Commissioner Monteschio-When will Planning Commission see these drafts?'
44 MikE Moo Fe- End of May.
45 Chair Broad-(regarding Amended and Restated Development PIan)-Is this a standard document?
46 Paul Marangella-;From time to time:more stringent,development agreements may be entered into
47 'Commissioner Vieler:-,Make this more specific, state it
48 Paul Marangella Maxusim fiexibility'in development agreements.
49 Commissioner Vouri'-PCDC should refer project to SPARC or Planning Commission.
Petaluma CBD Redevelopment.Plan Amendment Final EIR
Petaluma Community Development Commission 2. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
April 13, 2001 Page 2-16
1. Responses.to Comments Made bytMembers of the Petaluma Planning,
Commission attheir Regular Meeting of February•27, 2001
Commissioner Vouri
1.01 In response to this comment„Mitigationy9-1 On DEIR pages,2-16,and,.9-15.has been
revised to add the following: "City review of any such permit [referring'to the Section
8.28.100:of the City's Heritage and Landmark Trees Ordinance] requests shall include
consultation with the City's Tree Advisory Committee:” See revisions to these pages in
section 3 herein.
Corriinissioner Vieler
1.02 'Inresponseto this comment,Mitigations 8-1,,,8-2, 8-3, and 8-4 on DEIR pages.2-9.
through 2-14 and 8-9, 8-12 and 8-14,have been revised to add a specific requirement
for Planning Commission involvement in the design review process. See revisions to
these pages in section 3'herein.
Commissioner Vouri`
1.03 Following common practice, project impacts on the local street system'and parking
"infrastructure" are addressed in the Transportation and Circulatiorusection of the DEIR
rather than the Public Services'and Utilities section. The potential impacts of
redevelopment facilitated intensification on CBDiparking demands are addressed'in
DEIR section 6:3.6, "Impacts on Parking" The DEIR indicates in this,section that
project-facilitated development may (of course)•also generate increased,demands for
on and off-street parking (the term "off-street" referring to.offstreet surface parkingand
parking structures) in the centralarea, and that such demand increases are
not expected;to have a significant adverse impact on CBD parking'conditions because:
(1) there are no identified specific parking deficiencies in the redevelopment area,,and
(2) all future individual developments withintthe redevelopment area will continue to,be
subject to the City's offstreetparking provision requirements. Possible future,
redevelopment program:assistance to CBD public parking improvement programs,
which could'include parking structures, is described on DEIR pages 3-5 (first
paragraph) arid 3-9 (first bullet:under "Public.Facilities and Infrastructure'`):
Commissioner'Monteschio
1.07 The.buildout?scenario'evaluatedinthe DEIR is based on current'Petalu ma General
Plan and anticipatedcspecific plan land use policies for the downtown The traffic (level
of service)impacts identified in the DEIR as significant(intersections with future LOS
ratings of, D or worse) are the;result of cumulative citywide growth rather than
specifically CBD'intensification: Most,of the LOS'impacts identified would'occur with or
without future CBD intensification. Otthe 11 intersections identified:as operating at
•
WP5116111FEIRIF-2.611
Petaluma CBD Redevelopment Plan Amendment Final EIR
Petaluma Community Development Commission 2. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
April 13, 2001 Page 2-17
LOS D or worse in the year 2015, four'are within or approaching the CBD, one (1) is
due to the..redevelopment project alone and seven are Well outside the CBD in other
areas of the community.
Similarly, the DEIR does riot.indicate that the CBD alone Would be subject to a
concentration of fire:.protection inadequacies, environmental noise increases, and
increases in air emissions levels. The DEIR-identified increased demands for fire
protection and emergency medical services would occur with growth anywhere in the
community and would not be specifically a CBD phenomenon.
The DEIR-identified increases in traffic noise and traffic-congestion related air
emissions also represent,a cumulative impact associated with anticipated community-
wide growth under the current Petaluma General Plan, and are not concentrated in the
CBD.
Commissioner Monteschio
1.04 Federal and state tax credits•are already in place as incentives in support,of historic
preservation.
Commissioner Glass
1.05 The infrastructure:impacts identified in this program EIR,are associated with project-
facilitated CBD intensification plus anticipated cumulative citywide development, with or
without redevelopmentassistance.
The redevelopnient:program, if successful in stimulating increased private investment,
Would serve to implementthe General Plan and increase the rate of CBD development
and intensification under existing General Plan (and future specific plan) policies. The
mitigations identified in the DEIR for water and sewer service impacts (implementation
of Draft Central Petaluma Specific.Plan identified improvements with apportionment of
improvement costs among project sponsors, property owners and the City), police and
fire service impacts (ongoing monitoring and provision of additional police and fire
personnel and facilities as warranted by monitoring data, funded through the City's
General Fund),school services (tax increment pass-throughs'and achool impact fees),
and parks and recreation (parkland dedication and/or in.-lieu park fees), follow common
practice and are considered adequate to mitigate identified impacts:
Commissioner Vouri
1.06 All references to the current Draft-Central'Petaluma Specific Plan (Mitigations 7-1, 7-2,
8-1, 8-2, 8-3 and 8-4; refer to specific policies and actions identified in the Draft
Specific Plan that should be implemented either by adopting a specific plan with these
policies or byimplementing these policies individually as DR mitigations, in some
cases (Mitigation 8.1 through 8-4) through incorporation into City design guidelines.
WP511611 IFEIRIF-2611
Petaluma CBD Redevelopment Plan Amendment Final EIR
Petaluma Community Development Commission 2. Responses to Comments on the Draft SR
April 13, 2001 Page 2-18
The:DEIR'police and fire protection mitigationsfollow common CEQA practice,andrare
adequateto mitigate associated impacts.-See responses to comments 1.05 and 1 i07.
Regarding public and Tree Committee notification, the EIR mitigations for possible
eucalyptus Tree Removal along CopelandStreet have been revised in response to this
comment and Comment 1.01 to include participation in this process by the Planning
Commission, an action which inherently provides for public participation (see response
to Comment 1.01).
Regarding mitigation to satisfy the lead agency;:mitigation implementation to the
satisfaction of the lead agency, in this case the PCDC, is an inherent requirement,
under CEQA and is assured through the:CEQA required.,mitigation monitoring and
reporting process, as explained in Draft EIR sections 2.4 (Mitigation Implementation)
and 19 (Mitigation Monitoring).
Construction peiod air quaiity'impacts are already addressed in,the DEIR on page 13-
7, section 13.22, "Short-term Construction-Related Air Quality Impacts"
Regarding parking garages as mitigation,,see previous response to similar•comment
1.03.
Commissioner Broad
1.08 The DEIR-recommended land,.use and visual impact mitigations Will.becorne mitigation
requirements (i.e., will be "in place") by City certification of the EIR.
The City has an,established and stringent development control system in place to.deal
with all in-fill and other development applications (General Plan, zoning, SPARC„tree
removal ordinance, noise ordinance, grading permit-process, building permit probess,
mitigation fees', etc.).
The mitigation measures are worded in the.DER'to be as effective,("strong°) as
possible.
Commissioner Vieler
1.09 The DEIR includes adequate`:references to offstréét parking needs and`improvement
programs, as explained in response tyComment 1.03.above. The DEIR"indicates that
redevelopment program related onstreet and offstreet parking impacts would be less
than significant, and does not identify a traffic congestion related emergency response
impact. The specific traffic impacts identified inthe DEIR involve, 11 intersections
distributed throughout the community; four of those impacted intersections would be
within or near the CBD, and the significant;impact on one (1) would be<attributable to
the CBD redevelopment program. The redevelopment plate contribution to the
W P51161 I I FEI R I F-2.61.1
Petaluma CBD Redevelopment Plan Amendment Final EIR
Petaluma Community Development Commission 2. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
April 13, 2001 Page 2-19
intersection LOS impacts identified in the DEIR would not have a significant adverse
impact on emergency response times.
•
WP511611I FEI RI F-2.611
'42
•
•
•
2
Derek Jr Simmons
Attorney at Law
no Alice Street •
'Santa Rosa
Telephone.[Ion syy-Soso California email djs@sonicnet
959°9
• USA
• Facsimile- F917-4644474.
RECEIVED
MAR 1.0 2001 Friday, March 09, 2001
•
COITV MMON DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Michael Moore
•
Community .Development Director COPY BY MAXI, ATTAC.HN]BNT AND
City of Petaluma FAX TO`: (707) 776-4498 •
P.O.Box ,2001 •
Petaluma, CA 94953
COMMENTS. ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT PREPARED FOR THE
AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN [PROPOSED]
General Comments: •
Late last year in an article in the Sacramento Bee titled "CITIES /� I
PLAYING. A BLIGHT GAME", Dan Walters wrote "Although the refozin laws l�• 0
went into the books[in 1993] , many cities ..continue[d] to use
redevelopment creatively, in effect forcing their critics to sue to
enforce the .new rules on a case-by-case basis. . . .[The].Court .of •
Appeal recently struck down the {redevelopment] project, saying it
encompassed a "municipal wish list" rather than a cleanup of blight. '
The Town of. Mammoth Redevelopment Agency[TMRA] , referred to in the
Walters article, had to be taken to court to find out that what it
called "creative" use of redevelopment law and tax-increment
financing, :the court called illegal, a clear violation of both CEQA
and the Community Redevelopment Law[CRL] . It is the TMRA path of
folly and illegality that is currently laid out in the redevelopment
plan and the DEIR for it The Petaluma Community Development
Commission [PCDC] can take advantage of the court-exposed folly of the
TMRA and avoid 'the same path.. The path .laid out before you relies on
what it calls "Public-private..partnershins", a euphemism ,for
government subsidies. The taxpayer is to be sold by the Agency on the
g Iry
idea that this is found money; but it isn't . The tax increment comes
out of money that would be. available for other things. Nowhere does
the 'DEIR talk about the other tax-funded municipal activities that
will be de-funded, under-funded, or never funded due to taxes being
tied up to service debt owed to investors that buy bonds to give cash
to the PCDC_ Nowhere does the redevelopment plan or the DEIR that f.(2$covers it talk about that portion, if any, of the baseline environment
that is attributable to the twenty-five years of existence of the PCDC
as a track-record to undergird the assumptions in the redevelopment
plan and DEIR_ It is the "mom-and-pop" home grown Operations that J-
get squeezed out by the big developers favored by redevelopment "4.
agencies. Nowhere does the redevelopment plan or the DEIR that covets
it discuss suchdisplacement except in the case of eminent domain and
the mandatory. relocation benefits that the PCDC must pay to those
residents and those business dislocated by condemnation. Nowhere does A oe
the DEIR talk about NOT granting the power of eminent domain as a . !n
feasible mitigation measure -because it is solely and erroneously
focused on the only dislocation of business and residences resulting
from condemnation.
I represent a "mom and .pop" homegrown operation' that wants to stay in
Petaluma if Petal.umawants it to stay. My clients are concerned about
•
dislocation that results.from the implementation .of the redevelopment
plan that does not result from the condemnation of their property. 0,4 Dislocation of residents and businesses due. to the introduction of
incompatible uses, end to the intensification- of uses is never
discussed in the DEIR:, There are not relocation benefits mandatory or
otherwise for such."dislocations. My client's fear of such dislocation
is heightened :by the fact that the DEIR--' does not' even consider this
significant effect.
•
My.client doesn't want to be kept around now just to be squeezed out A w
by redevelopmentactivities later, having been made incompatible with 2•®/
the new neighbors moving in under redevelopment plans. The proposed
redevelop plan and. ,this DEIR that covers it are both insensitive to
because they are silent about the significant effects development of
incompatible uses will have on the viability of river-dependent uses
like my orient JERICO. PRODUCTS.
This project and this DEIR which covers it should be the "tail" wagged /f
by the General Plan and Central Specific Plan. Instead the Amended. (/ �
Redevelopment Plan is the dog-the two-tailed dog-- wagging both the
old General Plan, and the "not-yet" stub of -a Central Specific Plan.
Unlike any other Env ironmental impact Report [EIR] , an EIR for a
redevelopment plan prohibits any- future environmental review of
specific projects within the plan. Given the potential for significant
•
Page 2 of 13
adverse effects from projects that are prohibited from further
environmental review, now„ before the General Plan process underway is
completed and anew General Plan adopted; now, before, there is -a
specific plan -:in place for the geographic area covered by the
redevelopment plan; now, 'before these logically preceding events have
•
taken place; now seems an. extremely strange time to be adopting an
amended redevelopment plan. Because the DEIR does not understand the
requirements of CEQA for redevelopment plans, the DEIR does not comply
with the requirements of CEQA.
The legal authority for a redevelopment plan EIR. is set out in the
back of the book, Appendia. 21 1 : "Program EIR Authorit
_ n This 0q�
section a
pPears to have been taken from a word-.processing file written
either well before or in complete ignorance of recent relevant case
law on redevelopment plan EIR's. The Court of Appeal has made it
clear that the provisions of CEQA ;Guideline 15168 are inconsistent
with the language and effect of CEQA; i_tself at .Public Resources, Code
sections .21090 and :21166, and thus the Guideline could not apply to
redevelopment plan. EIR's. [Friends of Mammoth v . Town of Mammoth Lakes
Redevelopment Agency, (2000,),82 Cal App. a.�^ 512
Agency in MAMMOTH sought to comply with CEQA by 5re The Red EIR t at
was general rather than detailed-dust like DEER' At "page1R-2h of
this, DEIR the PCDC defines its approach as "broad-based" and"`
wide". The -.Friends. of M oP drejt
ammoth court, al"so at page 533, pointed out
that under CEQA, "[d]esignating an EIR as a program' EIR,does not by
Itself decrease the level of analysis otherwise required i'n the EIR.."
It must. be specific and detailed :hot a decreased "broad-based"
scrutiny of the impacts of the prc.ject. Contrary to law, this -DEIR is
'broad-based" and lacks any real scrutiny of any actual proposals,
instead giving only a greased-lens, soft-focus look -at the 'very
general proposals it does cover.. Because the DEIR does- not understand
the reauirements. of CEQA for redevelopment plans, the DEIR. does not
comply with the requirements of CEQA:
What Appendix 21.1"makes apparent, page 1-4 of the DEIR makes clear:
the. DEIR was written either in ignorance or total disregard of the, N.IO
requirements- of the law for redevelopment environmental impact reports
laid down in 'Friends of Mammoth v. To of Mammoth Lakes Redev=
A enc , infra. There at page ,1-4., the DEIR Says, -in• ent
that CEQA limits !the scope of this ,, ro ram . y among other ier"
program EIR; "rather the CEQA-re ':r 9 - rPR, this 'first-tier"
o fes"
_quizad environmental review of such
suosequent -individual actions[to approv_, individual projects] 'will. be
undertaken ata later time. ..." This is directly contrary to the law
as 'spelledout by the Court in Friends of Mammoth, -id. atpp `530-533.
Because the DEIR does not understand the requirements of CEQA for
redevelopment plans, the DEIR does:.not •comply with the requirements of
CEQA.
Page 3 of 13
•
2'g.
•
Only towards its end, on Page 5-3, does the DEIR ever acknowledge that e
"California Community Redevelopment Law reduires redevelopment areas 10.'1
to be consistent with existing adopted general plan policies. But the
DEIR never acknowledges, expressly or inferentially that the entire
redevelopment plan and. not just the redevelopment area must .be
consistent with the adopted General Plan, and with adopted Specific
Plans covering the same area.
Early in the .DEIR it declares that its mode of analysis is "worst 2•'/L
case". Strangely, it defines `worst case" as that case where in the v
future the redevelopment ,.plan has been totally successful. Total
success is defined as the elimination of all blight and the
redevelopment area,is developed, to the greatest intensity allowable
under yet to be drafted let alone approved General Plan, and the
assumed adoption of. the Central Specific Plan and subsequent amendment
of the General Plan, thereby making the dog consistent with its tail .
By Chapter Six, Traffic..andCirculation, ,even the pretense of a
"worst-case scenario" analysis has been dropped. Throughout this
Chapter the DEIR assumes that all the traffic improvements on the
State, County, and Petaluna's Wish List will be is place. That is not
"worst case." That is not even "best-case." That� is "wishful
thinking" of the highest order.' Because the 'DEIR does not -understand
the requirementsof: �CEQA. for redevelopment plans, the DEIR does not
comply with the requirements of CEQA.
No right-thinking citizen opposes the improvement of Highway 101 to 6 Z, '/
Lanes. Only the wrong-headed believe it will happen by the year 2015. %%
Yet it is. these wrong-headed assumptions that the DEIR uses for all
its impact analysis concerning traffic and circulation Not only do
they not use realistic analysis, or even their own proclaimed "worst-
case" analysis, the DEIR even uses outdated data for the baseline.
No right-thinking, citizen believes that ?Df' Street at and from
•
Petaluma Blvd, South to the "D"Street Bridge, is at Level Of
Service [LOS] "C". Maybe on a good day in 097, ;the date of the data
used in the DRAFT Central Specific Plan; but certainly not now in
2001_2
' The court in ,DOLeoTB-. made it clear that a redevelopment plan that is
little more than a municipal wish list will not peas :CAL muster..
2 T time-travel back to 1997 is indeed a "spacey'odyssey" in 2001,
Page 4 of 13
•
•
•
-Z
•
While the proposed Redevelopment Plan as Amended characterizes itself /d'
as an implementation program for and consistent with the.`General Plan,
nowhere does the General Plan identify using the extraordinary power
of the Community Redevelopment Law as an adopted implementation •
.program.. The General Piano identifies many other legal mechanisms as
available to them and proposed to be: •used by them, but nowhere is
"Redevelopment" themechanism of, choice for the area covered by the
amended redevelopment plan, or for any other area whatsoever.. Perhaps
this is because: at the time the• 'current General Plan was first
adopted, and at each of the updates it has ,gone through in the ensuing
years, neither the Community- nor its appointed and elected leaders
identified "urban blight" as a problem plaguing Petaluma, either a.
general proposition, or even in certain..identified sub-areas of the
Community. From this fact the reader. would be Lead to one of two
conclusionsb either the Community was satisfied that they lived in a
"blight-free" City; or that despite a General Plan that is known
nation-wide, here at Home where the rubber hits the :road, 'th' General
Plan with ;all its many Goals and Objectives; Policies and Programs.
None of which identify "blight" asaPetaluma disease, or the
"Community Redevelopment Law" as. the cure. .Because the DEIR does not
understand the requirements of CEQA for redevelopment plans; the DEIR
• does: hoc comply with the requirements of CEQA.
Particular Comments
Page 1-3. This_particular. use of a program EIR is contrary to CEQA,
as discussed under General Comments above. Z.,
Page 1-41 :This particular use of "tiering" of a program EIR ,tips
•
discussed and condemned at length in Friends of Mammoth, cited above,
Page 1-5. The impact analysis is not `worst case" because the DEIR'
erroneously assumes that the "worst case" environmental effects' will 2,11
result from,a successful plan:. No evidence is included to support
this assumption, and no combarati.vediscussion is set forth describing
either a "no project" alternative, or a "project" that spends the
taxpayers money and is. unsuccessful at eliminating What the plan
characterizes as "blight. :There is' no discussion in the DEIR of the
environmental impacts created by the proposed' intense development of tit)
the uses listed on this pagein a geographic- area currently planned
and zoned for and characterized by''industrial uses, including river-
dependent industrial uses. No discussion is had on this page or
anywhere in the DEIR about the environmentimpact of developing
' Whenever this report uses the terms, "impact" Or "environmental impact", or
significant impact"" or "environmental effect" it means an environmental
ef_fect .of sufficient significance as to require both discussion and
mitigation under CEQA.
Page 5 of 13
residential, retail, and othercommercialor "mixed uses"'[ see
discussion of "MIXED USE" below"] on the riverfront adjacent' to or
across from 'existing river-dependent uses. 'Further, on this page the
DEIR discusses the issue of. "baseline:" It correctly defines it and nel
the requirement for it, but then does. not use current data throughout 1
the cocuinent to establish what the current baseline is An example is
given above with. respect to traffic data being- outdated. Nowhere in A•'o
the either the plan or rn the DEIR is, there any :discussion of the -D
local or regional impact of the increase of electrical usage in the
assumed "worst case" 'scenario of "success " California is already at
risk of blackouts or rolling brown cuts and now discussion is had of
these environmental issues nor of the need to include local generating
capacity such as "pecker plants
Page 1-8. The DEIR correctly states that there is no requirement that 241
an EIR. discuss fiscal impacts, It may. There is a requirement,
however, that the EIR discuss secondary effects of known fiscal issues
that are environmental effects. The EIR is not required to discus's
the wisdom or folly of tax increment financing, but it is required to
discuss the. sionificant environmental impacts that result from not
only the expenditures[fiscal]made possible by tax increment financing,
but also the environmental impacts resulting from the de-funding,
under-funding, or riskier fundin of' municipal- actions[projects] that
would occur but tar the tax-increment committed to the redevelopment
area.
Page 3-1 to. 3-3. Nowhere here or on any page, in the DEIR is. there any ?j,"Irio
discussion supporting the assumption used throughout the DEIR that
what it and the plan characterize as "blight" will be eliminated in
the next 15 years. The plan itself ,by what it includes, and the DEIR
in commenting on 'it, adm t .that the existing redevelopment plan has
been unsuccessful in eliminating. "blight" in twenty five years in the
existing area. Nowhere. in the plan, or in the DEIR commenting on it,
is there any evidence supporting the. assumption that what could not be
accomplished in twenty-.five years in the existing area, could now be -
accomplished. in the added areas in fifteen years. The continuing •
existence of "blight" is a baseline issue. The `;baseline of blight"
must be compared to the 'blight" as it existed twenty-five years ago,
• together with a discussion of just how any..blight elimination can be
solely attributed to tax-increment financing, -in order to have some
substantial evidence in the record of the DEIR supporting the included
assumptions, assumptions that are Without support and therefore seem
silly on 'there fade.
Pages 3--9 to 3-5. There is no discussion here or anywhere else in the �j A/l
DEIR answering the question: What "blight elimination" since 1976 can L 6 7
be directly and solely attributable to the existing. redevelopment plan
and tax-increment financing? The apparent answer to why the. City is
playing a game of "pin the dog on the tail" lies in the fact set out
Page 6 of 13 •
V
on Page,3-.4: "Under the Existing Redevelopment Plan, the time limit
for issuance of debt is September 27, 2001.4 •
Page3-7 .to 3-10. Nowhere on these ,pages, oranywhere in the DEIR :is
there any' substantial evidence to support, the conclusion that but for Vitt
tax increment financing the "anticipated redevelopment actions" would
not: occur, nor, as mentioned, any discussion of the environmental.
affects created by those government actions that, because of the_
dedicated tax increment, will not occur, �•
And, as already mention. above and applicable as a comment on-tbe
entirely of 'the. DEIR, there. isno, discussion of -these issues in the
context of a "no project" alternative, nor in the context of a "worst
case" scenario;, defined as one as ;unsuccessful as the existing;
redevelopment plan must be not to have completed its work in 'the:,
existing area in over TWENTY FIVE..YEARS!
Page 3 _0. "There are no current Agency plans to acduire land_" Then
why include :the. power of eminent domain? Why exclude residential uses v• ��
if the power of eminent domain is included? How did the lack of the
power of eminent domain effect the actions taken during the past
twenty-five years of the existing redevelopment plan? If the existing.
plan's failure is attributable in any way 'to the lack of eminent
domain powers„'why were not those powers sought by earlier amendment,?
What are the environmental impacts or having: and not 'having this power
included in the plan?
Page 3-11: Nowhere on this page or anywhere in the DEIRis there any
discussion of the environmental impacts of the expenditure of tax '2II►►0,
increment funds °that go not into physical improvements but. instead
into things likethe mentioned marketing and administrationefforts-
. which.are not-discussed in any meaningful way with specifics: And
where is the discussion of the unmentioned fees paid to the "Stone &
Youngber ”-t -
g ypes; and the, bevy of: other �professionals .that heed taz-
increment financing to survive; and to servicing the debt? Where is
the discussion of the environmental effects created by those
government actions that, because of the .dedicated tax increment, will
not occur? Among the purposes of CEQA 'is. to allow the citizenry' to
know'the environmental sensibilities of their elected official's.
Where, as rin redevelopment plans, 'the citizenry is frozen out of any
vote on bonds, it becomes especially import that they know when and
why their. elected of facials 'makes 'fi'scal choices with environmental
effects:. That'knowledge is one of the purposes of CEQA and of EIR's.
It need to: be discdssed .in this .DEIR and it is not discussed on this
or any other page in the document.
'See Page 1 above: "Public-private. partnerships", a euphemism-for government
subsidies. The taxpayer is to 'be sole by the Agency on the idea that this is
found' money,- but it isn't. The tax increment comes out of money that would
be available for other things.
page' 7 of 13
•
•
1.41
•
Page 3-13 to 3-1.t. See the discussion. above and the case••.ofFriends Z 2&
of Mammoth, id, to understand this DEIR' s failure to follow the,law.
Page 4-4. This page, what it says and what it does. not say, bears 2.2q
directlyon my client. Here it is mentionspecffically; elsewhere
have been mentioned or omitted those environmental impacts that will
effect it and the area of which it is a. vital part JERICO PRODUCTS
is not only a building materials industry. It is that and more. It
is also an agriculture-related industry. It not only utilized the
river; it is dependent upon the river:. Without the commercial
navigability of the river, JERICO PRODUCTS would have tc locate else.
Without the presence of.-JERICO PRODUCTS there would be no commercials
navigability of' the river, at least not as a result of Corps of
Engineer dredging.. Ndwhe±e. on this page or anywhere else in the DEIR
is the environmental impact;of: losing JERICO PRODUCTS discussed in the
context of; its being pushed out'_by encroaching,incomcatibleuses, or
in any other context . Norris there any discussion of the /LSO
environmental impact of the river not being dredged in the event
redevelopment activities force ,JERICO PRODUCTS out of Petaluma..
Finally, nowhere on Page 4-4, or anywhere eise, in -the DEIR, is there 2.31
any discussion of the necessity or even the desirability of including
ADDED AREA "B" in the redevelopment plan; or of the environmental d•Ij/)
impacts if it were not included. Since JERICO PRODUCTS is the only
"urbanization" existing this ADDED AREA "B", the other lands being
unused, if not vacant, the DEIR seems to be stating as. does the
redevelopment plan :the JERICO PRODUCTS isyan .example of "urban blight"
that needs to be eliminated, Nonsense, and palpably so. There is not
even 'a good cover story in the plan or DEIR. td act es cover for the
PCDC's desire to include ADDED AREA "B". TAX- BASE. That's the
reason; that add the ability to subsidize private developers with
public money-including my client's tax increment--to build.uses that
will increase the pressure to drive my client out of ADDED AREA "B" 2. 7�
and out of Petaluma, Not only does this failure to discuss the
environmental effects. of this -proposed inclusion violate CEQA1 it
violates the good-.faith .representations- made by City officials in
their adopted documehts. and the relationships that have based on not
only good faith but mutual benefit as well 'for as long as JERICO' s
been tugging at the heart of Petaluma..
• Page 4-5 to 4-6. The DEIR lists some but not all of the Objectives 4.14
and Policies adopted by the. Community in its General Plan. No express
reason for thisexclusion is. stated, but one may be. inferred from its
characterization of the "select few"' as all those that are
"Pertinent_"
Missing is, among others, are
•
•
Page 8 of 13
OBJECTIVES: (k.) Preserve and protect the PetalumaRiver as ,a
commercially navigable transportation corridor! to the extent
feasible as. determined by the City Council; and
Polzcy '.10: River-dependent.•cozmnercial and industrial land uses shall.
be, 'Catered, provided they meet other General Plan .objectives.
Policy 18: Any actions which propose to change the existing =uses
affecting river-front land designated for commercial, industrial,
or mixed uses shall ..be reviewed toH analyze the impact .the action
may have on the U..5% Army Corps of Engineers conti'nied' dredainc
operations.,necessary to keep the Petaluma River commerdially
.navigable.
•
Policy 12: Maintenance of commercial shipping tonna,ge. on the r3_ber
sufficient to justify ,conti-nueddredging by the U.S.. .Anny Corps
of Engineers is a high priority of the City of Petal"uzna.
Under 4 .31(a.) , the -DEIR erroneously limits CEQA' s readivto only 4,
those conflicts 'listed in section 4.2 above." It .s not only strange,
it is in violation of CEQA that something that is an adopted, part of
the General Plan and "high priority" is not part of the DEIR. because
the DEIR chose not to include it in its "list ." 4 .3.1 correct%y-
• states the criteria, but then the DEIR fails to discussthat .fact that
!developing this expanded area with commercial, retail, and residential
uses,:fb.) disrupts the physical arrangement. of the community; is (c. )
incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity.
Page 4-7. ' The DEIR without any substantial evidence assumes that the IJ
plan is 'Consistent with, the adopted General Plan, and the "not-yet"
v �
-
stub-tail,Central Specific Plan. Even what is included is outdated.
See;;references to' the plan .of. June 22, 1:999, referring totheCentral
Specific Plan, which is still un-adopted and on a subsequent iteration
from the one that existed as of June 22, 1999.
Page 4-,S. What substantial evidentiary support is there to base 0.11 9141
the assumption. set forth on this page on a document that has not been •
adopted-the Central Specific Plan' See also the comments above
regarding conflicts with either adopted plans or existing development,
or both. How can timing analysis be based 'on documehts that are not
adopted?
.Page 4'-10. Nowhere, on this page or anywhere else in the DEIR is there /L,38
any.di'scussion of 'the .factthat theGeneral Plan does not include;as
an .implementation program the use of CDL or tax-increment financing.
See comments. above on the absence of required discussion !of the
offsite environmental effects of ,tax-increment financing;.
•
Page 9 of 13
•
1-141
•
Page 4'-11. See the comment above regarding the environment impacts
not discussed on residents.and businesses'dislocated by redevelopment ,Pl
activities that do not arise from aq exercise of the power of eminent
domain.
Page 4-12. Nowhere on this page or elsewhere in the DEIR is there any 2
discussion of the offsite environmental impacts of the displacement of
river-dependent industry such, as JERICO PRODUCTS. What is the impact -
on Highway 101 of truck transport of all the :building materials now
transported by river-dependent industry on the Petaluma River? What
is theimpact -oh local and regional agriculture of, losing all or
• economic access to the agriculture-reiated products provided by JERICO
PRODUCTS in the event of its dislocation due to redevelopment with
incompatible. use?
Page ?-13. What does the jargon "add vitalityand.interest" to these ^ 4'
added areas A and B mean? 'Mitigation Measure? 4.2.1 is as vaguely -V
worded as would be the mitigation from its implementation.
All of. these issues of incompatibility can be captured in the old saw: /L
If a tree falls in the for=est and there 'is no one there to hear it, is
there any noise? You might also add, is there any odor, or, dust,
etc?. These issues used to be considered in the law as "receptor"
issues, not "generator" issues. That is no longer the case.
Unfortunately for uses like agriculture and airports, the former
"receptor"-based law of the doctrine of "moving to the nuisance" is
deader than the dodo. All is now "generator" focused, and so there
are only two models for dealing with the laws current view of these
issues. Both models are used here in Sonoma County. Of the two models
for solving the general problem of "moving to the 'nuisance", one is
the model used by Airports; the other by agriculture. Airports have
adopted the '?noti in my. back yard" model; agricultural the " tough-I
was here -first" model, that is really the old "moving to the nuisance"
doctrine exoressly enacted into law only for farming. Either works,
but only one works efficiently in a City setting. The Airport solution
freezes all uses out. 'of a designated overfly zone. The farming
solution requires enacted law. The DEIR discusses neither, nor does
is discuss or include either ft. a proposed mitigation measure. CEQA
requires that mitigation be identified-and that it work. Without a •
mitigation measure that requires the City to• adopt an ordinahce'[s]
that would in a "right-to-farm" model protect the existing industrial
users from_: thenuisance complaints of new neighbors arriving as the
result of implementing the redevelopment plan, then existing industry,
including my .client, will be driven from Petaluma. These "sensitive
receptors" will not only be in the new-commercial and retail uses, but
especially in the residential and "mixed uses" the redevelopment plan
seeks. to encourage in .the "added areas."
Page 10 of 13
•
•
103
•
"Mixed-use :zones" are oxymoronic zones, and there is no discussion in 1.43
the DEIR of the environment effects of that fact.. The concept of
zoning--the very foundation of, zoning-- is nuisance avoidance_ The
City of Euclid was tired of complaints from neighbors. of the funeral
homes and rendering plants_ They decided to get rid of these.
complaints of nuisance :,by .separating homogeneous but potentially '
nuisance-creating uses into assigned geographic areas of internal
compatibility. The concept of a Mixed-Use zone is anti-zoning, the.
very -opposite of creating geographic areas in a community within which
homogenous uses can thrive within which falling trees have- no
sensitive. receptors to complain; complain of sound, or odor, or dust,
or .light, or glare, or. shadows, etc. etc. Mixed-Use zones are anti-
zoning; 'because there use is not premised on putting all similar uses
in the same geographic area, but on the assumption that inherently
incompatible neighboring .uses can by the .establishment and enforcement
of the 'good, fences" of. performance standards make good neighbors. :..
CEQA .recuires not only the identification and discussion of
environmental impacts, but the creation of "good fences called
Mitigation: Measures_ These mitigation measures satisfy neitherthe
ethereal world of CEOA not the real world of Petaluma and the "added
areas."
Page 4-15. The claim that the impacts will be reviewed as some future. %
time under' CEQA is wrong. See the discussion above and read Friends v
of Mammoth.
•
• Page 5.5. Nowhere on this page or anywhere else in the DEIR is there 74
a discussion of the environmental effects of "gentrification". One of
the leading critics of redevelopment is a group called.Municipal
Officials for Redevelopment Reform, or MORR, whose board is comprised
of- sitting city council members and other civic leaders from around
the state_ . According to .MORR, California's redevelopment laws, which
govern the behavior of California redevelopment agencies, allow cities
to float bonds and pursue projectswithouta vote of the ,people,
•
thereby: fueling,. not fixing the housing crisis. MORR reports that State
figures show that annual spending on housing by redevelopment agencies
constitutes just 2 percent of their expenditures, compared to the 46
Percent the agencies spend on debt Service, 19 percent on
construction, and 13 percent on administration.[ See: Dan Walters
article cited above.] - _
Pace 6-.1 to 6-14. See .discussion under "General Comments" above. 4.16
Page 6.14 to. 6.15. Focus -especially on the lack of any substantial � ��..
evidence supporting the assumptions. used on these two pages-. See •
discussion under "General Comments" above..
Page 7-5 :to 7.6. After several, paces describing how antiquated and $•.f
terrible the baseline conditions are, the DEIR contrary tb, CEQA 1
•
Page 11 of 13
•
ie
assumes that matters can get worse; that "terrible is terrible" and so
implementation of the redevelopment plan in the "worst case" scenario
can not be any worse, and more terrible. What if the redevelopment
plan encourages development without the existing terrible
infrastructure being improved? Why can't the current terrible
• situation get worse?
Page 7-11. Nowhere on this page or anywhere else in the DEIR is there Zeal
any discussion of the impact on schools and education from the N
proposed development of these added areas. Thenmere fact that there
will be state-mandated pass throughs does not justify the conclusion
that there will therefore be no significant impacts. There simply is
not substantial evidence to support the assumption that the effects on
schools and education will be "less than significant" because of
"impact-fees", "pass-throughs", etc.
•
Page 7-13. How can a current park deficit be eliminated or 4.*
sufficiently ameliorated by the required payment: of. Quimby/nexus fees? '
There is no substantial -evidence to support the assumption that an .
already deficient situation will not be made worse by the payment of
such. fees. Where is the substantial evidence to demonstrate that even
if all the .fees are paid.the .effect Will betto swell the park
development fund to a size still too small to buy and improve new
parks, all thewhile"exacerbating the existing deficit condition by
the addition of people Who are ready to recreate now in the already
overused facilities?
Page 8-4 to 8-16. Throughout the DEIR; but ,espedially in this section 4 L 1
dealing with Visual Factors, the internal distinction between the East (/ 7
and West side of. the river in Added Area Bis either not understood or
glossed over; it certainly is not pointed out or discussed. It should
have been pointed out and discussed earlier in the DEIR. It must
certainly be separately discussed here. The inclusion of both sides
of the river into 'a: single Added Area E is a trick to drive up the
taxable base .in the plan. It is not unusual but because its purpose
is not straight-forward and "blight" induced;, and because there
dramatically differing environmental effects depending upon the side
of the river being analyzed, it is important that the distinction be
clearly drawn. The conditions of visual "blight" identified to be
"fixed", eliminated by the "worst case" scenario of the redevelopment
plan-success, only occur on the West side of the river.
Page 9-3 to 9-4. The discussion here defers to the Corps of Engineers 2.44 •
and to their claim of definitional and -jurisdictional control of
wetlands. The U.S. Supreme Court has recently cut back on the Corps
usurpation of Cengressional power in the area of regulating wetlands,
and there is not acknowledgment of this fact. Further, in the
discussion the project area is characterized as "urbanized". Good so
far, because a jurisdictional requirement of CDL is that the area with
•
Page 12 of 13
1 'site
•
the plan be "predominately, urbanized." In recent appellate cases
overturning the "creative use of CDL the courts have made clear what
is and qualifies to chateetefized as "urbanized", and what does. not_
Aggregating urbanized area with areas that are not for purposes' of
increasing the tax base as here, is not only creative, it is contrary
to both CDL and CEQA, and should be discussed in the. DEIR as such.
Respectfully submitted;
..... i.............. .. if
Derek J Simons
cc: Client
•
Page 13 of 13
•
Petaluma CBD Redevelopment Plan Arnendment Final EIR
Petaluma CommunityrDeveiopment Commission 2. Responses,to,Conirnents on the Draft EIR
April 13, 2001 Page 2-33
2. Derek J. Simmons, Attornev at+Law, Santa Rosa; CA Representinq'Jerico
Properties; March 9;:2001
2.01 The commenter cites Friends of Mammoth:et al. V. Town of Mammoth Lakes et al.
decision by a California,Cburt of Appeal (2000) Cal.App:4th 511. The so-called
"Friends of Mammoth" or "Mammoth II" case has been widely reported and discussed
and analyzed by redevelopment and CEQA experts;,.including the Central Petaluma
Redevelopment Plan Amendment and EIR team. The redevelopment plan amendment
and Draft EIR have both been carefully formulatedto fully comply with the latest
California Community Redevelopment Law(California Health and Safety Code
33333.3), all relevantsections of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and
to specifically ensure that both the amendment'and the Draft EIR, fully comply with the
findings of the Court of Appeal decision in Friends oh Mammoth.
In order to respond to this and numerous related cornments,in the Simmons letter, the
Friends of Mammoth decision and its relationship+,to'the subject Central Petaluma
Redevelopment..Plan Amendment and EIR are described.below:
In 1996, the Town of Mammoth Lakes ("Town") and Town of Mammoth Lakes
Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") prepared a redevelopment-plan. The
redevelopment plan and EIR both included identification of 72 specific:development
projects ranging from a specific overhead gondola project, a specific.400-unit housing
development project on.a specific,site, and a 300-seat performing arts center at a
specific site. The.Town prepared a Program EIR'pursdantto CEQA Guidelines section
15168. The Program EIR listed"all 72 projects and described how each would
eliminate blight in the redevelopment area, but only analyzed the impacts of the
redevelopment program in general terms; the EIR did`not describe the direct and
indirect impacts caused by each of the 72 site-specific development proposals.
The Agency certified the EIRand adopted the redevelopment,plan in 1997. The Town
approved the redevelopment plan in July 1997. Friends of Mammoth sued, claiming
that the Program.EIR'did not comply with CEQA. The trial court denied the write of
mandate. The Court of Appeal reversed. The Court of,Appeal based its analysis on
Public Resources Code section 21090, which expressly provides that "all'public and
private activities or undertakings pursuantto...a redevelopment plan shall be.deemed
to be a single project" CEQA Guidelines section 15180 further provides that all such
activities "shall:be deemed approved at the time of adoption of the redevelopment
plan" and that"'[ajp EIR on a redevelopment plan shalibe treated as.a program EIR
with no subsequent EIRs required for individual components of the redevelopment plan
unless a subsequent EIR or a supplemental EIR would be required under 15162 or
•
15163."
The Court of Appeal reasoned that, under these sections, further environmental review
of any of the plan'and .EIR-identified 72 individual, specific development projects would
be prohibited unless significant changes occurred in the projector the circumstances
WP511611I FEI RI F-2.611
Petaluma CBD Redevelopment Plan Amendment Final EIR
Petaluma Community Development Commission 2. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
April 13, 2001 Page 2-34
surroundingahe project, of if'significant new information which was not known and
could not have been known when the redevelopment plan EIR was certified became
available: The Court found that most of the 72 individual redevelopment,program
facilitated:development projects were defined and formulated with great specificity,
including project locations, functions, sizes:and facility capacities.
The Court'concluded "because each project•is deemed approved for purposes of
CEQA, the;significant impacts to'the environment likely to be caused by each individual
project must be:analyzed in the redevelopment plan EIR at least to thersame extent
each project is detailed in the redevelopment plan."
The Town of Mammoth redevelopment plan EIR,and the aspectsofthat plan and EIR.
that are addressed in the Friends!of. Mammoth decision, are;distinctly different from the
proposed Central°Petaluma.Redevelopment Plan and EIR. The Mammoth
redevelopment plan included a detailed,.description of 72 specific development projects
by location,,an illustration (map) of specific public street rights-of-way, easements and
principal streets proposed in the;Project:Area to be widened, altered, realigned, etc:; a
list of specific development and transportation improvement projects by location,
.including specific widenings and signalizations ("North Village Road Widening/
Signalization at Minaret Road," "Center Street[improvements including._.,"
' "Gondola...from',North Village to Canyon Lodge...along existing easement construct an
overhead,gondola or similar transportation conveyance system "atNorth Village,
construct pedestrian/skier bridgesacross Minaret and Forest Trail";-specific property
acquisitions, a specific library',expansion" at the corner of Forest Trail and'Minaret"
construction of-an amphitheater(the USFS/Town Amphitheater) at_a specific location
(nearthe corner of Main Street and Sierra Park Road); construction of.a 300-seat
Performing Arts Theater in conjunction with the local community colle9e,construction
of a Stream Viewing Chamber/Interpretive center "at Mammoth Creek Park on Old
Mammoth Road", construction of a new gymnasium at Mammoth Lakes High School;
creation of an "event site," including small stage shell, utilities, rest rooms and parking
on an 87-acre site "at the comer,of Sierra Park Road and.Highway 2037; construction
of an Emergency Operation Center at "the corner of Forest Trail and Main Street";.
construction,of a new "Conference Center & Ice.Skating Facility" "within North Village
or Lodestar"; construction of a:new Recreation Center "at Mammoth Creek Park",
construction of apron expansions;:runway;.and taxiway extensions, terminal
improvements,•hanger improvements and parking improvements at the local airport;
and_,construction;of a new parking structure=and lots for 2,560 parking spaces at four
specific locations; etc.
The ER for the Town of Mammoth Redevelopment Plan did not describe the location-
specific impact:implications of these various redevelopment plan-identified location-
specific actions.
The:Court ofl;Appeals ruled that,,°because each'of these projects:.is:deemed approved
under CEQA section 15180, the significant impacts on the environment likely to be
WP5116111FEIRIF-2.611
Petaluma CBD Redevelopment Plan Amendment Final EIR
Petaluma Community Development Commission 2. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
April 13, 2001 Page 2-35
caused by each of these individual projects must be analyzed in the redevelopment
•
plan EIR "at least to the same extent each project is detailed in the redevelopment
plan."
Unlike the Town,of Mammoth Redevelopment Plan, the proposed Central Petaluma
Redevelopment Plan Amendment and the EIR include no description of anticipated
project-specific redevelopment actions for which:location-specific impacts are not also
described in the DEIR. The list of redevelopment programs and actions described in
the redevelopment plan amendment and in the Draft EIR Project Description (DEIR
pages 3-1 through 3-14), especially DEIR sectiorr3.4, Anticipated Project Actions, do
not include any specific,building, roadway improvement, or other location-specific
development or infrastructure improvement activities. Rather, the plan amendment and
DEIR describe the range of activities and anticipated specific redevelopment actions
known or reasonably foreseeable by the Lead Agency(the PCDC) at the time the
DEIR was prepared. No location-specific redevelopment activities or actions that could
be reasonably linked to aspecific location have been identified by the PCDC; rather,
the redevelopment activities and actions identified by the PCDC are exclusively
programmatic and,conceptual in nature ("assistance'with rehabilitation...of
underutilized, dilapidated, and/or vacant commercial,:industrial, and warehouse
buildings"; "assistance with seismic strengthening of...buildings," "assistance with
building facade improvements," "parking improvements," "transit improvements,"
"sidewalk improvements," "bicycle facility improvements," "landscaping improvements,"
"continued improvement of housing conditions," etc;). The proposed Central Petaluma
Redevelopment:Plan Amendment describes a range of general redevelopment program
actions and objectives at a general, conceptual level With a.lack of detail, since such
details have not yet been'formulated by the PCDC. Accordingly, the program DEIR
provides a description of the impacts and mitigation needs,associated with
implementation of these general program actions and objectives, to a comparable or
greater level of detail. In summary, the DEIR has been carefully prepared to be, and
is, fully consistent with, CEQA and the Friends of`Mammoth decision.
2.02 The long-term financial:impacts of the redevelopment program on other taxing entities
are an important concern that will be considered in Redevelopment Agency and County
decision making regarding the proposed redevelopment program. Regarding the
funding specifics of the proposed redevelopment plan amendment; the Draft EIR
explains in section -1.6 (Fiscal Impacts) on DEIR page 1-8 that therfiscal impacts of the
proposed redevelopment plan amendment are "non-environmental effects" which have
been described and evaluated under a separate procedure independent of the EIR
process. Under the CEQA Guidelines, the scope of the EIR is limited to evaluation of
the physical, "environmental" effects of a proposed action. CEQA Guidelines section
15131(a) states that "economic and social effects of a project shall not be treated as
significant effects on the environment,"but does indicate that any significant secondary
physical impacts of a fiscal effect shall be identified.
W P5116111 FEI R I F-2.611
Petaluma CBD Redevelopment Plan Amendment Final ER
Petaluma Community Development Commission 2. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
April 13, 2001 Page 2-36
In addition to the EIR, the PCDC has prepared and circulated to all affected taxing
entitles a Preliminary Report, dated January 2001, pursuant to California,Community
Redevelopment Law (CRL) (State Health and Safety Code section.3344.5),;which
describes:,the projected changes in tax revenue flows to all affected taxing entities as a
result of the proposed redevelopment plan amendment. The PCDC has also prepared
a Report to-Council on the:Proposed Central Petaluma,RedeveloprnenfPlan'
Amendment (March 2001) that includes thefollowing,sections describing the fiscal
effects Of the project on affectedtaxing agencies:
• Chapter 4, Methods of Financing and Feasibility;
• Chapter11, Report of the.County Fiscal Officer;
• Chapter 12, Summary of Consultations:with Taxing Entities;and
• Appendix D, Initial Tax Increment Projections (describing projected:tax''increments
from the existing and amended project,areas and allocation/amounts passed
through to taxing entities).
These reports describe how redevelopment financing will not cause the various
affected taxing agencies to "lose" revenue°.in an absolute sense, as,suggested in this
comment. Redevelopment tax increment financing will not decrease revenues to any
affected taxing entity. Rather, redevelopment and the system of tax;
;increment
financing'Will affect the rate of growth in property tax revenue received'bythe affected
taxing entities.
As explained in chapters 4, 11 and 12 of the,Repbrbto Council (March 2001), upon
adoption of the proposed redevelopment plan amendment, the affected taxing entities
would continue to receive their full share of property taxes attributable to the assessed
valuation of the existing project area and two proposed amendment areas at the time
the,plan amendment might be adopted, and in addition would receive a,share:of the
property taxes attributable:to subsequent growth assessed valuation (in the form of
statutory pass-through payments from the redevelopment agencyj. The,balance of the
tax increment revenue would be used by the redevelopment agency to stimulate
private reinvestment that would otherwise not occur. As a result, taxing entities would
not experience;a decrease in property tax revenues as a result of a redevelopment
plan amendment adoption. Instead, they would continue to receive a base level of
property taxes,and, in addition, they would"'receive aState-determined;share of the
increase in property tax revenues in the existing and added project areas, which,
depending on the success of the redevelopment program, may or may not exceed the
growth in property tax revenues that they would have received had there been no
redevelopment plan.'amendment.
The'January'2001' Preliminary'Report and March 2001 Report to Council are available
for public review at the officesof the PCDC (contact Paul Marangella, Redevelopment
Director, 707/778-4581, to arrange for review of the document).
WP5116111 FEI RI F-2.611
Petaluma CBD Redevelopment:Plan Amendment Final EIR
Petaluma.Community Development Commission 2. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
April 13, 2001 Page 2-37
In'theory, the increment:of growth in assessed valuation facilitated by redevelopment,
is the increment which,would not occur without„redevelopment, and therefore would
tend to offset at least some,of the diverted tax'xevenue from the increased
assessments. Furthermore, atthe end of the tax,.increment diversion period--in
another 25 years (year 2027):for the:existing project area, year 2047 for the
amendment area--the tax revenue distribution to all taxing agencies would return to
normal and would be much higher than without redevelopment due to the
redevelopment-facilitated°increases in assessed valuation.
In the existing projectarea, redevelopment would continue with"or without the proposed
amendment. The:amendment would not change the time limit or pace of
redevelopment,activities in the existing area;rather the"amendment will give the PCDC
the ability to issue bonds,,for another ten years asra means'of paying down
redevelopment incurred debt, rather than other sources of funds--e.g., loans from the
City.
The Draft EIR does:address the potential impacts of;a project-facilitated population
increase on variousaffected public services and utilities (DEIR section 7), but does not
describe the fiscal impacts of these increases in service demand, in keeping with
CEQA Section 15131(a).
2.03 A summary of previous;.redevelopment activity isdocumented in chapter 2 of the
Report to Council for the proposed redevelopment plan,amendment, available for
review at the offices..of"the PCDC (contact Paul.,Marangellaat 707-778-4501). The
chapter includes a brief description of redevelopment plan,activity from 1976 to the
present and a map+showing areas within the original project area which no longer fit
the redevelopment law definition of "blighted" due for redevelopment-facilitated
improvements.
With respect to the.,EIR "baseline,"the DEIR properly describes,the existing setting
(current conditions) in the proposed expanded project area, as the "baseline" physical
conditions upon which to determine whether redevelopment plan amendment
implementation will,have significant impacts. The redevelopment plan "baseline
environment" is described throughout the DEIR as:the existing "Setting" (see'DEER
pages 3-1 through 3-5, 4-1 through 4-5, 5-1 through.5-3, 6-1 ,through 6-12, 7-1 through
7-3 through 7.11, 8-1 through 875, 9-1 through 9-10, 10 71 through 10-7, 11-1 through
11-7, 12-1 through 12-3, 13-1 through 13-6, 14-1 through 14-5, and 15.1 through 15-2.
The CEQA Guidelines state that "An EIR must include a description of'the rphysical
environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project as they exist at the time the
notice,of'preparation is published...” and that "this environmental setting will normally
constitute the;baseline physical conditions by which.a lead agency determines whether
an impact is significant" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(a)). Description of the
PCDC's past effectiveness in implementing the redevelopment plan adopted in 1976 is
not necessary to an understanding of the significant effects of the proposed
;redevelopment plan amendment. The commenter seems to suggest-that a commenter-
WP5116111FE/RIF-2.611
Petaluma CBD Redevelopment Plan Amendment Final EIR
Petaluma Community Development Commission 2. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
April 13, 2001 Page 2-38
perceived slower pace of previous redevelopment activities shouldbe reflected in a
slower pace of future redevelopment,program implementation thanwas=assumed and
evaluated in:the EIR. To accept the commenter's;premise and reduce the'rate of
project area intensification assumed in the EIR would result in reduced-impacts; i.e.,
less than a "worstcase" scenario.
2.04 The commenter expresses concern regarding thepotential redevelopment plan
amendment's affect in facilitating introduction of new residential, commercial or other
uses in the expanded project,area which,may be incompatible with existing heavy
commercial and/or industrial uses and may eventually compel those existing heavy
commercial and/or industrial uses to relocate--i.e., to be "squeezed out"--and suggests
thafthe DEIR does not address such land use:incompatibihty impacts and dislocation
effects
The DEIR adequately addresses the potential for'redevelopmeht4acilitated'land use
incompatibilities under Impact 4-1, Adverse Land Use Compatibility Impacts, and,
identifies &mitigation approach""to avoid significant new land use conflicts between
non-residential and residential development, and between sensitive new residential
uses and existing nuisance prone`.commercial and industrial uses" (Mitigation"4-1):
With the exception of a number of recommended more stringent design guidelines, the
redevelopment plan amendment'proposes no change to existing General'Plan land use
policy, zoning designations, or zoning limitations and regulations in the;expanded
project;area. Any land use,incompatibilities"associated-with future,redevelopment in
the project area would be a function.of the City's existing General Plan and zoning
ordinance: The redevelopment;plan,amendmentwould serve to`facilitate:land use
change consistent with the City's adopted General,.Plan and zoning ordinance:
Implementation of Mitigation 4-1 would ensure.that significant land use'incompatibilities
and associated pressures to relocate would not°occur.
2:05 The DEIR adequately anticipates and'describes the potential impacts associated'with
the proposed continuation and expansion of Redevelopment:Agency eminent domain
powers over non-residential property. The DEIR confines this discussion to:eminent
domain powers over non-residential property because this is what is'proposed with the
project. The project does not proposed to establish'PCDC eminent domain powers
over residential uses. Because`no "significant" impact is identified, no mitigation is
required.
2.06 Please seeresponse,to similar Comment.2.04.
2.07 Please see responseto similar Comment2.04.
2.08 As explained`in response to Comment 2.01. The concern is expressed in this
comment that, with certification of this program EIR, future site-specific public and
private actions within the projectiarea may not be required to undergo subsequent,
sufficiently detailed, site-specific environmental review. The concernisexpreised that
WP511611I FEI RI F-2.611
Petaluma CBD RedevelopinentPlan•Amendment Final ER
Petaluma Community Development Commission 2. Responses:to Comments on the Draft ER
April 13, 2001 Page 2-39
CEQA'sectionsi'15180(a) and 15180(b)will permit individual future components of the
redevelopment plan, including future private development projects within the expanded
project area boundary, to proceed with:no subsequent environmental review
requirement. The premise in this comment is incorrect for the following reasons.
CEQA Statutory Requirements. Section 21090 of the'CEQA Statute states that "all
publiband private activities,and undertakings pursuant to,.,or in furtherance of, a
redevelopment plan shall be deemed to be a single project. However, further
environmental review.ofanv public or private activity or undertaking pursuant to or in
furtherance of, a redevelopment plan shall be conductedif any of the events specified
in Section 21166.have occurred."(underlineadded)
Section 211.66 of>the.CEQA Statute (like section. 15.162ofthe CEQA Guidelines),
states that "When an,environmental impact report has been prepared for a project...no
subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report shall be required by the lead
agency or by any re§ponsible agency, unless one or more of the following events
occurs: (underline added)
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project=which will require major
revisions,of the environmental impact report.
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to thecircumstances under which the
project is beingLundertaken which will require°majer revisions in the environmental
impact report.
(3) New information, which was not known and could not have been known at the
time the environmental impact report was certified as complete, becomes
available."
CEQA Guidelinea,Requirements. Section 1.2.1 on paged-2 of the DEIR has been
specifically included to address this important concern regarding subsequent CEQA
review. Section 1.2.1.,explains`that CEQA Guidelinesisection 15080 sets forth the
basic requirements set forth in the CEQA Statute Section:21090; i.e., EIR section 1.2.1
specifically addresses the environmental documentation!requirements for
redevelopment plans; redevelopment plan amendments, and for future:redevelopment
actions undertaken pursuant to a-redevelopment plan or plan amendment, by indicating
that:
• CEQA Guidelines section 15180(a) states that "All public and private activities or
undertakings pursuant to or in furtherance of a redevelopment plan constitute a
single project, which shall be deemed approved'at the time of adoption of the
redevelopment plan by the legislative body."
• CEQA Guidelines section 15180(b) states that "An EIR on a.redevelopment plan
shall be treated as a program EIR with no subsequent EIRs required for individual
W P5116111 FEI RI F-2.61.1
Petaluma CBD Redevelopment Plan Amendment Final EIR
Petaluma Community Development Commission 2. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
April 13, 2001 Page 2-40
components,:of the redevelopment plan unless a subsequent EIR or'supplement to
an EIR would be required by Section 15162 or 45163." (underline added)
The referenced CEQA Guidelines section 15162'indicates that a future public or private
action pursuant to the redevelopment program addressed in this EIR;would require'
preparation of a Subsequent EIR under one or more of the following conditions:
(1).substantial changes are proposed in the project (the proposed redevelopment
action) which will require major to the previous EIR due to the involvement of
new,significant•environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously`identified effects; (2) substantial changes occur with respect to the
circumstances under which the project(the proposed redevelopment action) is
undertaken which will require important revisions to the previous;EIR due to.the
involvement of new significant environmental effects; or (3) new-information'of
substantial importance becomes available that was not known at the'time of the
previous EIR and;the new information shows that the project (the proposed
redevelopment action) will have one or more:significant'impacts not previously
discussed in the EIR; or (4) the:effects;previously examined will be substantially more
severe;than shown in the previous EIR.
•
The.referenced CEQA Guidelines section 15163, through reference,to section 1'5162,
identifies conditions under which a future public or private action in/furtherance of the
redevelopment program addressed in-this EIR would require preparation of a
"Supplement:to the EIR" or "Supplemental EIR." The section indicates that a;future
public or private action pursuant to the redevelopment program addressed in this EIR
would require preparation,of a supplement to this EIR it (a) any of the conditions
,described in.Section 15162 would require preparation of a subsequent°EIR, and
(2)ionly minoradditions or changes would'be necessary to make the previous EIR
adequately apply to the proposed redevelopment action in the changed situation.
The language in CEQA Guidelines:section 15180 indicating that a redevelopment plan
and undertakings in furtherance thereof are a single project, is consistent with the
theory of a program EIR. Caserlaw interpreting program EIRs has+provided that the
various''undertakings°in furtherance of'a program for which a program EIR was
prepared must be analyzed'in the light of that program EIR. If the later activities in the
program.involve no new significant:effects beyond those analyzedin the program EIR
and are adequately handled'by'mitigation measures identified in the program EIR,.
there is no need for further documentation in the EIR process- If,,however, a particular
activity would involve a new significant effect or a significant effect substantially more
severe than indicated`iin_the program EIR, then theremiust be additional CEQA.
CEQA Gu del nes sections 151580(b),1 1 d
15162 and effect,' as set forth in
P Y P 1
'Bass,'Herson, and Bogdan, CEQA'Deskbook, 1999 (Second) Edition, page 264.
WP51 V6111FE!R'F-2.611
Petaluma CBD Redevelopment Plan Amendment Final EIR
Petaluma Community-Development Commission 2. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
April 13; 2001 Page 2-41
Preliminary Review and Initial Study'Requirements. At a minimum, the CEQA
provisions cited above require,the Redevelopment Agency'orCity, acting as Lead
Agencyunder'CEQA for a particular'futurepublic or"private action pursuant to the
Central.Petaluma Redevelopment Plan.Amendment, including any future public or
private development project"within the redevelopment area not otherwise exempt from
CEQA underCEQA Guidelines sections 15260 or 15300.2, to begin the process by
complying with the Preliminary Review and Initial Study'Requirements of CEQA Article
5 (sections 150601throtgh'15065).
For private developmentapplications for permits or other entitlements for use, a Lead
Agency is allowed 30 days.to review the application for completeness under CEQA
section 15060. Section 15060(a) states that "While'conducting this review for
completeness, the-agency should be alert for environmental issues that might require
preparation of an EIR or that may require additional explanation by the applicant"
Section 15060(b) states"Except as provided in section 15111, the lead agency shall
begin the formal environmental evaluation of the project after accepting an-application
as complete and determining that the project is subject:to CEQA."
Section'15060(c) states that "Once an application is deemed complete, a lead agency
must firstdetermine whetlierran activity is subject to CEQA,"and indicates that any
project including a ''discretionary"approval that may "result in a direct or reasonably
foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment" is subject to CEQA, and must
undergo preliminary review, unless the Lead•Agency determines that an EIR will clearly
be required, in which;case, the agency may skip further initial review and begin work
on the EIR.
Through this mandated initial study exercise (i.e.,.completiomof an Initial Study
checklist), the Lead Agency must-determine.whether`the proposed action will require
either a negative declaration; a mitigated negative declaration, or, if the criteria listed
under CEQA Sections.15162 or 15163 are met, a subsequent EIR or supplemental
El R.
Conclusion., For the reasons detailed above, CEQA.Guidelines section 15180 does not
give a redevelopment plan amendment program EIR any special preclusive rights or
exemptions beyond any other program EIRE Under the statutes and guidelines
described, including CEQA Guidelines section 15180, a-program EIR for a
redevelopment=program is no different than any other program EIR with regard to
subsequent;;environmental review requirements for any future public or private activity
or undertaking pursuant to the program. Lead Agency (Redevelopment Agency or
City) compliance with.the interrelated CEQA sections described above is required by
law, and can.be'expected to provide adequate assurance that any significant adverse
•
environmental impacts associated with a future individual public:activity/improvement or
private development action within the redevelopment project-area and/or in furtherance
WP5116111 FEl RI F-2.611
Petaluma CBD Redevelopment Plan Amendment Final EIR
Petaluma Community Development Commission 2. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
April 13, 2001 Page 2-42
of the redevelopment plan thatwill require discretionary-approvalby-the
Redevelopment,Agency or the City will be identified and addressed.
To emphasizethis point and to provide:a documented standard,and reminder for the
Agency, the City and the community, it is recommended that Redevelopment Plan
Amendment language be modified to add text to the following general effect:
,Each individual public activity/improvement.or private development action withih;the
Project Area-and/or in furtherance of this Redevelopment Plan that will require a
discretionary approval by the Agency or the City will, at.a minimum,'be subject to a
preliminary California Environmental'Quality Act (CEQA) review'to determine if the
activity, improvement or development action then requires preparation of a negative
declaration, a mitigated negative declaration or a subsequent or supplemental
environmental impact report'in accordance with the applicable standards of CEQA and
the CEQA guidelines.
Regarding the concern raised in this comment that to prepare this EIR.before the
current General Plan update and CBD;,specific plan program are in place "seems
strange,"'it is the intent of the DEIR describes the environmental effects of the
expanded,redevelopment program proposed,undertne Central Petaluma
Redevelopment Plan Amendment. `To do+'this, the DEIR describes the impacts of the
potential growth.scenario that could be facilitated byte redevelopment program. As
expressedly explained on DEIR''pages'1-4, 1-5, 4-8, and 4-9, the DEIR'describes a
future."worst case growth scenario--ice., the greatest reasonably foreseeable;growth
increment likely tofoccurin the future with the redevelopment plan amendment in
effect--in order to identify and plan:,for,the:most severe potential impacts'and mitigation
needs likely to be associated with the redevelopment plan amendment.
The DrathCentral Petaluma-Specific Plan, although,not yetadopted,,rePresents the
latest local thinking regarding futurecentral area goals and objectives, isthe result of
an extensive CBD planning effort, is based,on extensive community input, and was
envisioned in the City's Current•(1986) General Plan. Based on these factors, buildout
of the CBD under'the land use program described in the Draft CBD-Specific-Plan is
considered;;by the EIR;authors"to represent the most accurate, reasonably foreseeable
future growth and change scenario for;the CBD andproject'area.
2.09 Please see response to similar Commenfl2.01.
2.10 Please see response to similar Comment 2.01.
2.11 The DEIR,expressedly,andrepeatedly explains,that the proposed redevelopment plan
amendment is required by law,to conform to the existing and future-policies established
in the Petaluma General Plan and any future specific plan for the area; see DEIR
pages 1.4 (lastparagraph), 1-5qfirst paragraph), 3-7 (section 3.4:1), 3-11 (section 3.5),
WP51161 IIFEIRIF-2.611
Petaluma CBD Redevelopment Plan.Amendment Final EIR
Petaluma Community Development Commission 2. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
April 13, 2001 Page 2-43
4-5 (section 4.2.1), 4-8 (last paragraph), etc. The redevelopment plan amendment and
the expanded project area are clearly and inherently interrelated.
• 2.12 As reiterated in response to Comment 2.11., the DEIR.impact analyses are based on
the requirement that the redevelopment plan must be consistent with and incorporate
the City's adopted General Plan. In that light, the EIR describes the potential effects of
the redevelopment plan.amendment in facilitating,project:area intensification under the
policies of the Petaluma.General Plan and anticipated future specific plan for the area.
The redevelopment plan amendment would essentially represent a general plan and,
eventually, &specific plan implementation tool.
The DEIR therefore describes the effects of the,anticipated future redevelopment plan
facilitated project area build-out scenario in combination with anticipated future
cumulative community-wide conditions based on Petaluma.General Plan policies. The
General Plan Circulation Element calls for completion of specific roadway
improvements (listedon DEIR.page 6-14, Future Roadway Network) by the year 2015.
Therefore; the DEIR-analyzed, project-facilitated growth scenario, which is required to
be consistent with"the;General Plan, incorporates these plan-specified improvements
as reasonably foreseeable. The assumption that US'101 through Petaluma will be six
lanes by the year 2015'.is also consistent with local and regional planning assumptions.
In particular, this conclusion with respect to the subregion's,key interregional route is
consistent with Sonoma County Transportation Agency (SCTA) assumptions. The
SCTA is the state-mandated regional transportation planning agency for Sonoma
County. The SCTA represents the county's 10.cities,and the unincorporated areas of
the county. The City of Petaluma has a representative on the Board of.ISCTA. The
SCTA, as a means of implementing the Agency's Congestion Management Program
(CMP), has adopted,the'Sonoma/Marin Multi-ModaltTransportation & Land Use Study
(Final Report, June 6, 1997) as the Agency accepted evaluation and improvement
recommendations for the U.S. 101 corridor. A gravity traffic'model using EMME/2
software was completed for that study with an assumedbuildout year of 2015. The
study identifiesya "preferred scenario" for future U.S. 101 improvement which includes
a widening of the freeway to six lanes through Petaluma from Highway 116 to Old
Redwood Highway. The highway widening has been included in the capital
improvements plan (CIP) for the Agency's Congestion Management Program (CMP).
In summary, the Sonoma/Marin Multi-Modal Transportation & Land Use Study(Final
Report,,:June 6, 1997) has reasonably established, as Was assumed inahe EIR, that
projected traffic;volumes on U.S. 101 is likely to be six:Ianesthrough Petaluma before
the Year 2015.
2.13 Please see response to Comment 2.12.
2.14 Redevelopment is clearly an available and generally accepted tool to implement the
economic,development, downtown enhancement, job attraction, and housing
improvement goals of the Petaluma General Plan.
WP51161 I IFEIRIF-2.611
PetalumaCBD Redevelopment,Plan Amendment Final EIR
Petaluma Community Development Commission 2. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
April 13, 2001 Page 2-44
2.15 Please see response to,Cornment2.01. _
2.16 Please see response to Comment 2.01.
2.17 The DEIR purpose is to describe the potential.environmental.impacts'of,the-project
objectives. The "worst-case" scenario from a physical, environmental standpoint, is the
successful realization of the basic'project objectives to continue`the PCDC's blight
elimination and economic revitalization activities in the existing areaand„expand-these
activitiesi.into the two proposed added areas in order to facilitate economic revitalization
within the area The "worst-case" result from a CEQA standpoint would be.,substantial
land use intensification and associated land use compatibility, population, housing,
traffic, public services, air quality, noise, drainage, visual, geotechnical and cultural and
historic resources impacts. The purpose of the DEIR is to describe the'worst.case
impact scenario in order to formulatesufficient mitigation. If the project is less
successful than assumed in the DEIR, project impacts will be reduced and the Ela will
remain adequate.
2.18 With regard':to DEIR discission of the,impacts of project-facilitated introduction of new
uses•which maybe incompatible with existing uses, please seep response to similar
comment 2.04.
2.1.9 Regarding the DEIR "baseline," please see response to Comment 2:03, second
paragraph.
2.20 Regarding energy usage, the,project.would have an overall beneficial, energy
conservin g effect. The comment is acknowledged that the EIR should include
discussion of the potential energy".impact:of the proposed redevelopment program. In
response`to this comment, a discission of project energy impacts has been..added,to
section 18.of the EIR, entitled-18.4, Energy Conservation." Please see revisions to
EIR;pages v and 18-3 included in section 3"herein. No significant new impact,
mitigation orr alternative,has been identified in added section 18.4.
2.21 Please see response to Comment 2.02.
2.22. The EIR impact analysissis based on'the worst case assumption that the project will be
successful:in eliminating blight (the impacts of blight elimination are addressed on
DEIR pages 4-10 through 4-12) and thereby encourage/facilitate central area
intensification. The impacts of the anticipated.intensification scenario are then fully
addressed'through the EIR. The comment-regarding the adverse economic impacts of
project-related "de-funding" of other taxing entities is based on erroneous assumptions,
as explained in response to Comment 2:02; please refer to that response.
•
2.23 Regarding the ceffects of the previous redevelopment plan, please=see response to
Comment 2:03.
WP5116111FEIRIF-2.611
Petaluma CBD Redevelopment Plan Amendment Final EIR
Petaluma Community Development Commission. 2. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
April 13, 2001 Page 2-45
2.24 If the proposed redevelopment program is less:successful'than anticipated in the DEIR,
its impacts would be-reduced and the EIR would remain;'adequate. See response to
Comment2.17. Regarding the fiscal effects of the program on other taxing entities,
see response to comment 2.02.
2.25 The "no project" alternative,is adequately discussed on DEIR pages 17-1 through 17-4.
With regard to the comparative impacts of a future scenario with a less successful
redevelopment program than anticipated in the Draft EIR see response 2.17. With
regard to the effectiveness of the existing redevelopment program since 1976, see
response 2.03.
2.26 The power of eminent domain over non-residential property and its potential
environment impacts are addressed in the EIR because the proposed project
(redevelopment plan;amendment) includes extension ofthe power of eminent domain
over non-residential:property fora specified additional'periodin the existing project
area and introduction`.of that-power for a specified period in the proposed added areas.
The merits of excluding,the power of eminentdomain over residential property from the
"project" are notdiscussed, and need not be discussed in the EIR. CEQA requires the
EIR to discuss/describe the impacts of the project,as proposed; there is no requirement
that the EIR discuss or justify the specific merits of the project as proposed, other than
its environmental impacts. See response to Comment:2.04.
2.27 The comment is based on erroneous assumptions: See responses to Comment 2.02.
2.28 See response 2.01.
2.29 There is no redevelopment goal or intent to displace Jerico Products. On the contrary,
the redeveloprnent!plan is:intendedito implementadopted General Plan and anticipated
Central Petaluma.Specific;Plan (CPSP) policies calling for reinforcing the working
character of Petaluma's waterfrontand preserving existing industrial uses that are a
valued part of the local economy, contribute to Petaluma's unique sense of identify,
and are reminders of the city's agricultural and,river-oriented heritage.
Although not yet adopted; these policies do expresscurrent planning trends for the
area The Draft CPSP'cites Jerico Products and other industrial uses in the central
area that-reinforce the working character of the,riverfront.and indicates that "the Central
Petaluma Specific'Plan seeks to support viable,uses'both existing and new" and states
"Towards this end, plan policies support a mixed-use waterfront, but not at the expense
of viable industrial uses." (Draft CPSP, page 106)
Jerico Products is located on 8.3 acres at the head of McNear Channel. Under the
Draft CPSP, this area is planned to maintain,the current complement of commercial
• and industrial uses" (Draft CPSP page 3-19). Overall, the greatest anticipated change
cited in the Draft CPSP would be development of a,newoffice/business park at the
WP5116111 FE1 RI F-2.611
Petaluma CBD Redevelopment Plan Amendment Final EIR
Petaluma Community Development Commission 2. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
April 13, 2001 Page 2-46
southern end of,the.Pomeroy site on land:which has generally not been used for
industrial purposes.
Added Area;B is proposed as a means of introducing redevelopment tools to achieve
this planning trend to maintain thecurrent,complement of commercial and industrial
uses•while accommodating the anticipatedinew office/business park use through
provision of improved infrastructure and building rehabilitation assistance as needed.
The proposed redevelopment plan amendment includes no activities or actions
expressedly designed to remove,Jerico Products or any other specific existing project
area land use. There are no current.Agency plans to acquire land or to relocate or
displace Jerico Products or any other property through eminent domain under'the
proposed project
The;Petaluma General Plan, which is incorporated into the proposed redevelopment
plan amendment, includes Goal 3: "Maintain the Petaluma:River as a navigable river
to the head of°.navigation."' Jerico Products, a company that harvests oyster shell
deposits in the,bay and processes+theme into=agricultural feed and:fertilizer, is
dependent upon river transport,:and is one of the key river-dependent uses that compel
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to continue its Petaluma River dredging program.
2.30 See comment2.29, especially the last paragraph: The DEIR does not anticipate a
project-related loss of existing Jerico Products operation, and associated secondary
impacts such as possible loss of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dredging needs. On
the contrary, the project (redevelopment program) is,expected to help implement City
policies to maintain the Jerico.Product operation and other river-oriented industrial uses
in the project area as uses that are a valued,part of the local economy, contribute to
the City's unique sense of identity, are reminders of the City's'agricultural,and'river-
oriented heritage, give the area meaning, and set Petaluma apart from cities in
the region:,
2.31 The DEIR does not discuss the merits of the'proposed project rather than the DEIR
scope'is'intentionally and properly limited to identifying the significant:impacts of the
project as proposed.
2.32 The DEIR does,not state, nor does it intend to state, that the Jerico Products operation
is+an example of "blight. The building condition survey completed by John B. Dykstra
& Associates,as background documentation for the redevelopment program indicates
that the subarea of Added Area B that includes Jerico Products has the highest
average existing building condition rating of all surveyed subareas. Also, please see
responses to comment 2.29 and 2.30.
2.33 The DEIR meets`CEQA:requirementsin properly,and adequately addressing the
environmental impacts of the project, including the proposal to include Added;Area B,
as explainedIn response to comments 2.01 through 2.32 above.
WP5116111 FEI R I F-2.611
Petaluma-CBD Redevelopment Plan Amendment Final EIR
Petaluma.Community Development Commission 2. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
April 13, 2001 Page 2-47
2.34 The comment is that.the ER should include the additional pertinent
General. Plan'policies cited in this comment. EIR pages 4'5 and 4-6 have been revised
to include these policies (see revisions to these pages in section 3 herein).
2.35 See responses to Comments 229, 2.30 and 2.34. The cited policies have been
included,in'the EIR. As explained in response to Comments 2.29 and.2.30, the intent
of the redevelopment'plan is to help implement adopted,General Plan and anticipated
specific plan policies to maintain existing river-oriented uses, protect the navigable
nature of the river, foster river-dependent commercial and industrial land uses, and
maintain continued US. Army Corps of Engineer dredging operations by maintaining
sufficient commercial shipping tonnage to justify continued dredging.
2.36 Please see Response to.cornments 2.08; 2.11, and 2:12 (re: evidence that the project
is consistent with General Plan.and no-yet adopted CPSP).
2.37 See response to similar comments 2.08, 2.11 and 2.12.
2.38 See response to similar-comment 2.12 and 2.14.
2.39 See response to similar comments 2.04, 2.XX, and 2.30 (plan purpose is to maintain
Jerico).
2.40 There is no project,intent to displace Jerico Products. See response to similar
comments 2.04, 2.29 and 2.30.
2.41 The terminology add "vitality and interest" comesfroin the Draft Central Petaluma
Specific Plan and means what it says; the introduction of new housing into the land
use mix is.intended to provide Housing near the'downtown and proposed transit center
as well as add vitality and interest to these areas," "vitalityand interest" meaning more
human activity and extended hours of human activity to 24 hours rather than 8-6, and
"these areas" expressedlymeaning (see bottom of page 4-12) areas that are now
predominantly commercial and industrial, including the area'north of East Washington
Street near the Petaluma Depot, and in the River Warehouse District, as proposed in
the Draft Specific Plan.
The measures described.under Mitigation 4.2.1 are intentionally worded for application
as'guidelines, and are explained in more detail in the three paragraphs that follow the
mitigation"box' of the bottom of page 4-13 and top of page 4-14.
2:42 The comment is based on the incorrect premise that a project intent/objective is to
displace Jerico Products and similar existing river-oriented=heavycomrrmercial and
industrial uses. See:responses.to comments 2.04, 2.29 and-2.30.
2.43 Mixed.use zones are established land use designations intended to foster"smart
growth," i.e., efficient use of central'area properties well served by transit and other
WP5116111FEIRIF-2.611
Petaluma CBD Redevelopment Plan Amendment Final EIR
Petaluma Community Development Commission 2. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
April 13, 2001 Page 2-48
infrastructure as a means of controlling sprawl, reducing traffic and air emissions and
conserving open space lands. Placementof housing and employment activities in the
same "geographic area" is not=an inherently incompatible land'use concept On the
contrary, mixed use development is occurring successfully, with less than significant
internal land use compatibility impacts, throughout the United States, and is a key
component of such contemporary planning themes as the ''New Urbanism"'and "Smart
Growth:"
In any event, the discussion cited on DEIRppages 4-13 and 4-14idoes not pertain to
"mixed use":land use designations,and does not mention "mixed.use"; rather the
discussion pertains to conflicts between parcelsdesignated for residential, commercial,
or industrial developments, and possible land use compatibility conflicts between such
parcels.
2.44 See response to comment 2.01 and especially 2:08.
•
2.45 See response to comments 2.04, 2.29 and 2.30.
2.46 See related responses to comments above.
2.47 See response to comment 2.12.
2:48 The,DEIR discusses the potential environmental impacts of redevelopment facilitated
growth on infrastructure, including,a scenario'where growth occurs without:,associated
infrastructure improvements, under Impacts 7-1, 7-2, 7-3, 7-4, 7-5, and 7,6 on DEIR
pages 2-5 through 2-8 and 7-9,through7-13.
2.49 Within the limitations of State Senate Bill 50 (SB=50), the DEIR adequatelyaddresses
the impacts of.redevelopment:facilitated;growth in the expanded redevelopment area
on schools, on pages 7-9 through 7-11. `SB 50, passed by the state in 1998,
-specifically invalidated previous court decisions (Mira, Hart and Murieta) which
previously provided school districts and local lead agencies the legal authority under
GEM to require new development to fully mitigate school impacts in connection with
legislative approvals (e.g., general plan°amendments, rezonings, redevelopment plans,
etc.). Under SB 50, the lead agency is:limited to the statutory scheme for imposing
school facilities mitigation—Le., the imposition of.state-authorized (statutory) school
mitigation fees. Where school fees fail to fully alleviate impacts, SB 50,limits on
facilities mitigation and prohibitions on school-related project denial would be reasons
for individual future projects to be carried forward.
2.50 The City's standard parkland dedication or in-lie park fees have been formulated to
provide an equitable and adequate Citywide approach to park and recreation service
provision and mitigation. If it is determined by the City that the fees have become
inadequate, the fees may be adjusted upward by the City based on demonstrated
nexus.
WP5116111 FEI R I F-2.611
Petaluma CBD Redevelopment Plan'Amendment Final EIR
Petaluma Community Development Commission 2. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
April 13, 2001 Page 2-49
2.51 The comments-pertaining to DEIR;pages 8:4 to 8-16 (visual impacts) and to the merits
of including properties on both sides of the river"in Added.Area B and the
appropriateness,.of the redevelopment plan amendment'blight identification aspects
pertain to the merits of the project rather than to a substantive environmental point.
Regarding the opinion expressed that'there may be "dramatically differing
environmental [visual?] effects" depending on the side of the river being analyzed, the
comment does,not appear to relate to the EIR visual impact findings or to acknowledge
that each significant visual impact identified on these pages pertains to a specific
location, i.e., is focused on a specific location within the,overall project area--i.e., Water
Street, along the west side of the River, the East Washington Street corridor, the
Turning Basin, and the Riverfront Warehouse District 'between D Street and Foundry
Wharf." Some of these locations-are on the west side Of the river (Water Street,
Riverfront.Warehouse..District), one is perpendicular to and traverses the river (East
Washington Street), and one is in the river (Turning.Basin).
2.52 The discussion on pages 9-3 and 9-4 of U.S Army Corps of Engineers wetland
jurisdiction and.Section,404•permit procedures is accurate and unchanged by recent
U.S. Supreme Court actions.
Compliance of the proposed Added Area boundaries with California Redevelopment
Law criteria, including the required degree of "urbanization" is a non-environmental
issue addressed in other-project documentation--i.e., the,Preliminary Report, Draft
Amended Redevelbpment.Plan, and Report to the City„all available for review at the
PCDC offices (to review any of these documents, please contact Paul Marangella,
Redevelopment,Manager, at 707/778-4581).
WP511611IFEIRIF-2.611
STATE OF CALIFORNIA •
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
J
State Clearinghouse
Gray Davis
Steve Nissen
GOVERNOR DIRECTOR
March 12;2001 RECEIVED
MAR -14 2001
Mike.Moore COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
City of Petaluma Community Development Commission
11 English Street
Petahinia, CA 94952
Subject Central Business District Redevelopment Project Aiea Amendment
SCH#': 2000102125
Dear Mike Moore:
The State Clearinghouse:submitted the above named Draft MR to selected state agencies for review. On the , 0
enclosed Document Details Report please note that the Clearinghouse has listed the state agencies;that
reviewed'your document. The review period closed on March 9,2001, and the comments from'the
responding agency(ies)'is(are) enclosed. If this comment package is not in order,please notify the State
Clearinghouse;immediately. Please refer to the project's ten-digit State Clearinghouse number in future
correspondence so that we may respond promptly.
•
Please note;that Section 21104(c)of the;California Public Resources Code states that:
"A responsible or other public agency shall ronly make substantive comments regarding those.
activities'rnvolved Ma project which are within an area,of expertise of the agency or;which are
required to be carried out or approved by the agency: Those.comments shall be'supported by •
specific documentation."
These,comments'are forwarded for use in preparing your final environmental document. Should you need
more information or clarification of the enclosed comments we recommend,tlatyou contact the
commenting agency directly.
This letter acknowledges that you-have complied with the;State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft
vfronmenta,documens,pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact the State
Clearinghouse at(916)445-0613 if you have My questions regarding the environmental review process.
Sincerely, ire
Sat Terry Roberts
Senior:Planner,State Clearinghouse
Enclosures
cc: Agency
I400 TENTH STREET P 0. BOX_3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044
916-445-0613 FAX 916-323
•
Document Details Report A_
State Clearinghouse"Data Base y�
SCH# 2000102125
Project Title Central Business:District Redevelopment Project Area Amendment •
Lead Agency Petaluma, City of
Type EIR Draft EIR
Description Proposed amendment to the Petaluma Central Business Distract:Redevelopment Plan to: expand the
existing boundary to include 127`acres of contiguous property;extend the time limitations for collecting
tax revenue,;incurring,debt and exercising eminent domain;and a;cap on tax increment.
Lead Agency Contact
Name Mike Moore
Agency City of Petaluma CommunityDevelopinent Commission
Phone , (707)778-4301 Fax
email
Address 11 English Street
City Petaluma State CA Zip 94952
• Project Location
County Sonoma
City Petaluma
Region
Cross Streets •
Parcel No.
Township Range Section Base
- Proximity to:
Highways 116
Airports Petaluma Municipal
Railways NWP RR
Waterways Petaluma River
Schools various elementary and secondary
Land Use Commercial, Residential,Industrial-consistent with,adopted General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
Project Issues AestheticNisual;Air Quality;Archaeologic Historic;:Drainage/Absorption; Flood Plain/Flooding;
Geologic/Seismic_,Noise;:Population/Housing Balance;,Public Services; Recreation/Parks;Sewer
Capacity;Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading;Toxic/Hazardous Traffic/Circulation;Vegetation;Water
Quality;Wetland/Riparian;.Growth Inducing;Landuse;Cumulative Effects
Reviewing Resources Agency;:Department of Boating and Waterways;Department of Conservation; Department
Agencies of Fish and Game, Region 3;Office`of Historic Preservation;'Department of,Parks-and Recreation;
Caftans,Divisionlof.Aeronautics;''Caltrahs,District 4; Regional Water Quality Control Board,Region 2;
Department of Toxic.Substances Control;Native-American,Heritage Commission;,Public Utilities
Commission;State Lands Commission
Date Received .01/24/2001 Start of Review 01/24/2001 End of Review 03/09/2001
Petaluma CBD Redevelopment Plan Amendment Final EIR
Petaluma Community Development Commission 2. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
April 13, 2001 Page 2-52
3. Terry Roberts,:Senior Planner, State Clearinghouse; Governor's Office of
Planning and.:Research; March 12, 2001
3.01 Letter notifies lead agency (the PCDC),that one,state=agency (the Departmenuof Toxic
Substances Control) has commented on the,DEIR during the,45-day public review
period ending on March 9, 2001, andlhat`lead agency has complied with state
clearinghouse review requirements: No further`written response is necessary:
WP511611I FE/RI F-2.611
Department of Toxic Substances Control
Edwin F.Lowry; Director _ _
700 Heinz Avenue, Bldg F, :-
Winston H.Hickox Berkeley,California 9471 F721L tt"
Secretary for I Grverno Davis
Environmental I 9 2001 Governor
Protection MAR
March 7, 2001
s
I..
f
Mr. Mike Moore
Petaluma Community Development Commission
11 English Street h7 (Or 10
Petaluma, CA 94.952
Dear Mr. Moore:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the DraftEnvironmental Impact Report for
the Petaluma Central Business District RedevelopmenfPlan Amendment (SCH #
2000102125). As you maybe aware, the California Department of Toxic Substances
Control (DTSC) oversees the cleanup of sites where hazardous substances have been
released pursuant tothelCalifomia Health and SafetyCode, Division 20, Chapter 6.8.
As a resource agency, DTSC'is„submitting comments to ensure that the environmental
documentation prepared for this project to address the California Environmental.Quality
Act (CEQA) adequately addresses any required remediation activities which may be
required to address any hazardous,substances release.
The impact report indicates:that the'land has been used for residential, industrial, and 4. 01
commercial purposes in the past However, section 9.3.2 of the report states that a
portion of the land has been"disturbed by past agricultural activities, which may have
resulted in pesticide, herbicide, or insecticide residues. Based upon this, there is a
potential for hazardous substances to have been released into the environment_ We
strongly recommend that this section of the report be modified to include whether a
release or threatened release of hazardous substances which pose a threat to public
health of the,environment exist at the property..
If hazardous substances have been released, they will need to be addressed as part of at
this project. For iexample, if the remediation activities;include the need for soil
excavation the CEQA document should:include: (1) an assessment of air impacts and
health impacts,associated with the excavation activities; (2) identification of any
applicable local standards which may be exceeded by the excavation activities,
including dust levels and noise; (3) transportation impacts from the removal or remedial
activities; and (4) risk of upset should be there:anfaccident at the Site.
DTSC can assist your agency in overseeing characterization and cleanup activities
through our Voluntary Cleanup Program. A fact sheet describing this program is
California Environmental Protection Agency
® Printed on Recycled Paper
OSP 99 25436
Mr. Mark Moore
March 7th, 2001
Page 2
enclosed. We are aware that projects such as this one are typically-on;!a compressed
schedule, and in an effort to use the available review time efficiently, we request that
DTSC,be included in any meetings where issues relevant to our statutory authority are
discussed.
If you have any questions regarding this issue, please call Kindra Bozicevich'at
(510)540-3836.
Sincerely,
Barbara J:.Cook, P.E.; Chief
Northern California - Coastal Cleanup
Operations Branch
Enclosures
cc: Governors Office of Planning.;and Research
State Clearinghouse
P. O. Box 3044
Sacramento, California-95812-3044
Guenther Moskat
CEQA Tracking Center
Department of Toxic Substances Control
400 P Street, 4th Floor
P. 0. Box 806
Sacramento, California 95812-0806
t
Petaluma CBD Redevelopment Plan Amendment Final EIR
Petaluma Community Development Commission 2. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
April 13, 2001 Page 2-55
4. Barbara J. Cook, RE., Chief, Northern California Coast Cleanup Operations
Branch, State Department of Toxic Substances Control; March 7, 2001
4.01 The commenter recommends that section 9 of the DEIR, Biological Resources, be
modified to include a discussion of potential hazardous substance release impacts
associated with the past agricultural activities mentioned in;this section. Because this
issue is not a "biological resources" issue, but rather is a "hazardous materials" issue,
it is therefore..already adequately addressed in section 12.of the.DEIR, "Hazardous
Materials"; see section 12.3.2, "Impacts Due to Project-Facilitated Hazardous Water
Remediation," and "Project-Facilitated Exposure to Hazardous Materials
Contamination" on DEIR page 12-6 and 12-7.
4.02 The potential environmental impacts of possible project-facilitated soil remediation
activities are adequately at the program EIR level in DEIR section 12.3.2,
under "Project-Related,Exposure to Existing Hazardous Materials Contamination" on
DEIR pages 12-6 through 12-7.
WP5116111 FEI R I F-2.619
ip 03/27/2001, 08:27 FA! 7788344 Community Development 16001
STATE Oh C.ALIYORNIerr--^ - , — T0`°'"'' :
o.
ta, 1 L` kl� r= ��l ,c
F. �; Governor's Office of Planning and itsedn..11 l* r
State Clearinghouse ['All': MAR MAR 2 7 2001' ;� e,
•Gray Davis i I ) i Situ �t'uvrn
CovIRNOE I tlia[V'un
Mazsh 22 2001 1
CF_,Vl�
IVAR 2 6 zoo;!
Mum Moore C17d1d?UNir`i rEyF
CityofPemluma:CommunityDevelopmentConwssian IQFYEhrn .
11 EngluhStreet P�Ar�ENr
PetalumaCA 94952
Subject Central Business District Redevelopment Project Area Amendment
Saki: 2000102125
Dear Mille Moore:
The enclosed comment(s)on your Draft ElR wan(were)received by the Stahl Clearinghouse after the-end
of the state review period,which closed on March 9,2001. We are forwarding these_connzxnu to';you 0
because they provide information or raise issues that should be addressed in your final eiiviianimism'
document
The Califonna Environmental:Quality Act does not require Lead Agencies to"rspond to lam comments.
However,w ti encourage you to incorporate these:additional comments into your final environmental
document and to consider them prior to taking finil;acbon on the proposed project
Please contact the State Claringhouse,at(916)445-0413 if yon`have any quoeti ins concerning the
envirooanentalreview process. if you have a question regaxding,the above-named project,please refer to
the ten-digit State Clearinghouse number(2000102125)when concocting this office.
Sincerely,,
Terry Bebe
Senior Pinner,State Clearinghouse
Enclosures.
ere: Resources Agency
Post-It`Fax Note 7671, Days 3tri� '3
CO a ere:,
Phone 4 _. . Peen i
Pax A Pay e- u
I400'1'1N'1'11 STRFTT P.O.Box a044 SACRAh1ENTO,:CALLFUBNIA 95812-3044
9W-445-06n PAX 9r6:123-3018 acca,o1%CA.Gav C11AIUNGUQUS3IIBNI1
reci
•
Petaluma CBD Redevelopment Plan Amendment Final EIR
Petaluma Community Development Commission 2. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
April 13, 2001 Page.2-57
5. Terry Roberts, Senior Planner, State Clearinghouse, Governor's Office of
Planning and Research; Marchr22, 2001
5.01 Letter transmits Caltrans,District 4 letter dated March 19, 2001, explaining that it came
after close of public review period, that the lead agency-'is:not required to respond to
late comments, but that the letter should be included in the EIR records.
The Caltrans letterand responses to the lead,agency follow (letter#6).
WP5116111 FEl RI F-2.611
03/27/2001 06:27 FAX 7766344 Communits Development 21002
03121/01- 17:17 FAX 5102885513 TRANS PLANNING 33 8001
_IFORNM-9t51ttEB5 TRAIB,ORTATION NC • -..-
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P OBOX21010
DAXINCI.CS. 110400
March':19;.2001 •
SON=GEN-00
SC1i#2000102125
SON000111
Mr.Mike Moore
°i‘S RECEIVED
City;ofPetah'ma
Community Development'Commission MAR 2 1 2001
11:English;Street.
--Petalnms CA 94952 -.- - . "--
57717E CLEARINGHOUSE
Dear Mr:Moore:
PETALUMA CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT REDEVELOPMENT AREA
AMENDMENT- Draft Impact Repot(DEI/t)
Thank you for continuing to include the Califbrma
Department of Transportation (Cahrans) in
the environmental review process for the above-referenced project. We have reviewed the Draft
Environmental Report(DEM)and we forward the following comments:
1. Please provide a copy of tine"1999 Central Area Specific Plan Traffic Study"for ow review. 6,01
2. On Page 6-16,paragraph 6.33 of the DFDR. it mentioned that"as shown?in Table 6.3, the
following six,Petaluma intersections are projected to All below the City's threshold level•of W. vio
service.standard..." There are 10 intersections listed (not'six), but there are 11 intersections
in Table 6;3 that have a LOS of D or lower. Please clarify.
3. On Page 6-18 oftheDEIR, Mitigation 4.4.1 states, impart. "Southern crossing connection: / p
Provide two approach lanes:one left turn only and one right torn only." Does this mean that • ✓�
v'7
through traffic is not allowed from the Southern Crossing Connection to US_ 101
aoutbbotmd?' Plane provide a geometric layoufof the intersection for our review.
4. Please be aware that Cahraos has
proposed the following improvements in the project area: /_. o
•'' Replace the southbound U.S. 10liStateRoute 116 East(Lakeville ffighway)bridge to �f•
provide two freeway lanes and a truck-climbing lane across the bridge and improve
the on-ramp..
• Widen U.S. 101 to six-lines from State Route 37 to the Old Redwood Highway
interchange.
Any world including traffic control,to be done witinu the,State right-of-way(ROW),wilt require
an encroachment permit. To apply, a completed application, environmental documentation, and
five sets of plans should be submitted to the following address:
03/27/2001 08:28 FAX 7788344 Community Development 0003
03/21/01, 17:17 FAX 5102865513 TRANS PLANNING B 1002
MnoreWSON000U 1
March 19,2001
Page 2
Sean No2zari,District Office Chief
Office of Permits
Calttans,Dishiot 4
P.O,Box 23660.
Oakland, CA 946234660
If you have any questions regarding these comments, please call Alice Jackson of my staff at
($I0)622-1644:
Sincerely,
HARRY Y. YAHATA
District Director •
By
.1)C6Lid‘ a
JEAN C.R.FINNEY
District Branch Chief
ItiRICBQA
Petaluma CBD Redevelopment.Plan Amendment Final EIR
Petaluma Community Development Commission 2. Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
April 13, 2001 Page 2-60
6. Harry Y. Yahata, District Director, State Department of Transportation (Caltrans),
District 4; March 19, 2001
6.01 The City will provide the District:with a copy of the requested traffic study.
6.02 Comment acknowledged. EIR,pages 6-16 and 6-17 (Table 6.3) have been revised to:.
(1) clarify the significant criteria,applied; (2) indicate that eleven rather than six
Petaluma:intersections are projected to fall below LOS D by 2015 with or without the
project and,(3)clarify why the LOS impact at one of these eleven intersections,
Lakeville Highway/U.S. 101 southbound map, would be significantly affected by the
project, as was correctly stated'.in'the DEIR.
Please see'.revisions to EIR pages 6-16 and 6-17 in section 3 herein.
6.03 The Southern Crossing is proposed to include three rather than two lanes; one left;turn
only,,one through and one right turn only lane: The DEIR has been revised on page
6.18 to incorporate this correction(see revised page in section 3 herein).
6.04 These Caltrans-planned improvements are adequately acknowledged in the DEIR (see
section 6.3.1(b)2).
•
WP5116111 FE1 RI F-2.611
Petaluma CBD Redevelopment Plan Amendment Final EIR
Petaluma Community Development Commission 3. Revisions to the Draft ER
April 13, 2001 Page 3-1
3. REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
The following section includes:all revisions to the Draft EIR made in response to comments
received during the Draft EIR public review period. All text revisions are indicated by an "r" in
the left margin next to the revised line. All of the revised pages supersede the corresponding
pages in the January 2001 Draft:IlEIR. None of these changes,represents a significant
increase in impact or a significant tnew`impact, mitigation, need not already considered in the
Draft EIR.
WP5116111 FEIRI F-3.611
Petaluma CBD"Redevelopment Plan Amendment Revisions to the Draft EIR.
Petaluma Community Development'Commiission Contents
April 12, 2001 Page v
Page
12. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 12-1
12.1 Setting • 12-1
12.2 Pertinent Plans, Policies and Regulations 12-3
12.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures 12-5
13. AIR QUALITY 13-1
13.1 Setting 13-1
13.2 Impacts and Mitigation Measures • 13-7
14. NOISE 14-1
14.1 Setting 14-1
14.2 Pertinent Plansand Policies 14-5
14.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures 14-7
15. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES 15-1
15.1 Setting 15-1
15.2 Pertinent Plana r.d Policies 15-2
15.3 Impacts and Mitigation Measures 15-3
16. PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH LOCAL AND REGIONAL PLANS 16-1
16.1 Local Plans 16-1
16.2 Regional Plans 16-3
17. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 17-1
17.1 No Project Alternative 17-1
17.2 Modified Expansion Area Boundary 17-4
17.3 Modified Redevelopment Activities 17-5
17.4 Mitigated Project Alternative 17-7
17.5.Alternative Project Area Location 17-8
17:6 Conclusions 17-9
18. CEQA-REQUIRED ASSESSMENT CONCLUSIONS 18-1
18:1 Growth'-Inducing Impacts 18-1
1.8:2 Unavoidable.Significant Adverse Impacts 18-2
18:3 Irreversible Environmental Changes 18-2
• 18:4 Cumulative Impacts 18-2
• r 18:5 Energy Conservation 18-3
18.6 Effects Found Not to Be Significant 18-3
WP5116111 FEI RICON-R.61.1
Petaluma CBD Redevelopment Plan Amendment Revisions to the Draft EIR
Petaluma Community Development Commission 2. Summary
April 12, 2001 Page 2-9
m
o
C C
0 V O
C t Cn
m c.L - J
16
o.N
_ c
ro o
. m
CD
w
a C m a
V m U az N 0 - c G m C 0 m o� U a. - ro
i n c � c o0 c p C O W o 'o TO vj m _
° n dh olo J- co 2QN N8. ae o � -
c._ - m m b
m
lip a
C' as Ni d 'O f6 0'--a a co d W r'"O CO m >' a d
E c of c.. m o ro CO c c c a c a
z �° moy 0a) °oaE � oroaa Emdc° m 'n
mc �. �;CJ Di 2- roL m o .. -a m o
m 0EmE ' 0 mma0ooa C9a� 0_ U � c
ED ¢ a c m m a) c c ci o .� m ,`o ca) m c Q m
m - (-13- -) - -0mom � 0 .c � c � �+ -� a dye.
m aomm = � ro5Ca co5o '0 prods pro
moN _ 0
N -a y N C c -o 0 co Y C � c o u) _c E ro m i R '0
o mmaOOCC EE Cc am 22 us° = 0 ) mcam � � U � � � Cto
0:- a) -
m ° E '5 'o c E.t a-0 o ,aa o R c m E - - a m ° ai
m o m = ro -0 m O > O � -0 2 2 .o 0 < _o0mU0_ Ocro ? an O .� 38 Oo$ am
m
o
_ c c
m ro O
- 0 -ro
.
m a L U)
0 cat lc
N
V ._ al 3 E .R :'al
E a � mf
- mc . 2
� z ra m a,«y ,
5 .• :Z000ta- oa) ea
RI c E�c o D ro p 'aa) cc
.in E :� m y -o o >
Q m
m,W V i6 O m m C as
m m .- a o V ro
-=
-.Lm.. E c o.:o c m o
N- ,m m
m co o >
co y2 C C m mda m me °—'
cz v 73 nct
O� s W-�'0Orooc..- al
y' c a m 0 '0 u -C 0 a
-c ,* E 3 -E m C ro
m -�' � c °0_'0 DE2r CoJCTZ
• 0 Q 0Tr. m: O Ic a O
ro W fa ,T, > `—° cm > m li n u n
E > EwdD -cC7a � m co JCOOZ
Petaluma CBD Redevelopment Plan Amendment Revisions to the Draft EIR
Petaluma Community Development Commission 2. Summary
April 12, 2001 Page 2-11
Q)
0
C C
.. N co o
C€ co CO
N CL J
.'
o-E
a
oN
ro o
0) >
_
EC U
co c ? >
0 S] . CO N. b?.9 N N .m U 5 N T 3 N a
a En cD 0 0 C Q - U a 01 - O C its O >.— ro =
= 03 _0 ,_ ,_= E j d ro O o .Ni 3 m t ._ .O's co N ro N o
C C U '5 DrE _, N o U 'o W o m. ` c m O c co
cN m C7 m :E 0 > -o ¢ m O CD m:v as c O > vi r
d ro '> `- C C .O d m C O ¢ N �, 2 a_o d .3 .��,,v 4.-CD m m
am ._ m .m'cUmoroa �,Y ...w0m.:? c ."e 0c`• sue- ai
a) C ro
aoi c .c0) c O'c -c a a) ro.c' d E c c a, r o E c d = d m 'o
o E v is ' N
N a F= -oo 0 Q op-.0 U C N m 2 o U 0) C m o c U `o 5 H ? c0
a N '
N CC Y C N d .3 N Li= -.ro y N. C o' o G = U i V G co C r '00 N
voi C of c o o c m N .E N c .� a..5 o o y.a .51) o m -o of y 3
a) c o 0 'o --_oo .0 d .= m 2. O C ° m C a.= f° U a 0 o C s-_-.
N ate- o c f ro
C m co U >:,w - 9 C N 'a) - N m m.0 c U j co N ro ro .
o r �.O. C) 0..o co O ro o c _c .= Q c-
N m =' 0 Q 0 c a c o
:tr. W 0 U . 0 d ;C '� 2 ) n �:'� m m m C> ro 2. C.0 LL .Q O) U CZ w
plc ° c 2 a'c5 c H =.-o c = C -E 5 --..c a ro ro a
•._ N A ro l.'00 O.�o ro y al E 0 3 �:.my W ,: 0 o'C c (TS
2 E -o m a v ro N a� a '8 2 ro C7 0o O N H 3 2,= 0 c\i U 'N a o co
U y y
C C
To CS _ 0 `
.9 0". .
aa) C L ro co
rn=•
C r
ro
d
=3ER2c
7 = 7).•-=P. CD .>, N N
co 0':rnd 0 N co -C
> W c•a:-« N dH •-- v
a7 , � � "(0, )g.3 d a
Qom.. c,c. o R2 m o E
ccEI,10. 0 -07oma m IS
03 W C' -C a 0 a) C N C ro
m 0 52 co - C 5 E C 0 a
Ill
E C 0 __0 '5 m .` 0
roH
CQCGNC'— y E
crnro •- m ° 00a8ao °-� c .o
o c o = = R > m n c c c
I- wcmaromy � tE rororoQ
x o « C as o . w .r... °_ a
oiw E-.2 a) E •-• c C co c ro
0o N o E ro a),r„ to m m o
N a-o,� E z w o in _1 enZ
• i Q U m 0 C. 0 t6 N a
ro m 01 N N it_. C C. 4. H G II II II II
E E E m -% CC7a2ro. a a`�i mJ � Z
Petaluma CBD Redevelopment Plan Amendment Revisions to the Draft BR
Petaluma Community Development Commission 2. Summary
April 12, 2001 Page 2-13
a)
U
c C
.
To co O
cE m
a) C tir
c FA
clD
.0
0
O
-s N
m
Q
m m au m
a 0).0 'O .E 'm• ? ` a) m R3
C 3 c aa)i -0 ro ,0 m a .� m .0 V U� U h
tr. CD
N 2 C 0 Y ro L c L ro c c c U
E « .m m. yc oo ,0 aa) m, m .rno 0 .o)Y O) u)
o a� Is >, m m m ° a c °'a) O c CO 0. � O o 4 .E
O) O 0.0 O �, 2 W CO E .0 O c ro U ,C O .c m c �
c a _ c N C > E .- 0)
c m -6c:o co ..-�,: > C90 E. o- c E Em ,...0 a)
m m c , m ° a v) m
d C-N °mcu t ro.:mm oCr o. y. w om o °:=o
m ,..y a m'.o, m y-:y O U C a U 3 U m U 3 m
a) T 0 eo U w o m c ° > c'5. ° c 'C c o c
N -- oc _ `�= CO -°_=30O � mO � ? � CO c me
OS
c `°m m "� 'ro Q - S .S..) m N � = m a) -c) 3 Y .` � ,
O a�.� C :E ro'.'-m-�.p..` (O N a C N C a 2 c 4!SCZ n2 m CD 2 2woCUamao `N-oEc°iE O v ro E Ova C) vo ZEan
m
U
roro .. 0
U o ai
C • O ro
m C L
o- C f
w R m m O'
0 d O 0
3 co
-0 — ro = m w
mc ,� L.JE C m m m >
_c Ts romHay °' a, m v
L...� -m m m C Gl 0 4.2 roa "C..m a) E- 'x ` E
3..= -3.>, o nzro o co "°
c To C m " m '� C m m (Ca CO d
m m —
m m N > N m ' c = ca C co
> O
O O_.� N.�. O'.3 U '0 O N r _C C co N
C 0 ° 0) 0 q R Oi d . = ro t.` V as U n L U cc .5 ] o C a .0 N _
cY a a ro _ J . C y c
groc, 5vw m NoE . ao,.
M m 0 U U - 0- a ° m d U 0-5 J (.7) Z
E N a as Cf > L �o .o a L.. a N cn = Q CO— (n JDZ
Petaluma CBD Redevelopment Plan Amendment Revisions to the Draft EIR
Petaluma',Community Development Commission 2. Summary
April 12, 2001 Page 2-16
a)
0
C C
. is us O
C V- 0 w
0O ink.
U
0
CO 7, O N
C O
m 0 m 0
my = O
d
Cr 2 LL 0
d
a1 al :4 a) - C L O. d1
-0 L.. O .L. 0 .rn 0 �' E 11 C m ,C
O
N a 0 0 C « O N E L y 0 0 0 c m > .�ca d C N
E 2 'D. c 0 0 O D ~ O at `a O co L C (n . - c4 a).•N "0 .0 N E L O O a-Li) 9 a V a O �3. D D N a. E. C
N O L C E >._:0 ro as O C "O O cq O .O 0 U O W C '0 O C cts to O 2:L to O a) d _' E O C O O C. O
0 ° —E. 0 0 0 0 -.. 0 w d E U Y to O;E O N .- al O V U
a) c"a O as y m es a� ° O C `0.. y w —°_ m m � °'try O
L,O .o ur :. c o,c0 L o > ao m ir"cma) a) `a >_ E'.35 a
t- mo0 -- « E ° ocL oOEo ,S 'o'� > OoCt > ooa c '
ai OLd OO` UO0C N -O L:.o co cp = L r.� OoO ti « CD
al E E _ « ° mr 0 as ) 0 ac C o c cc; m 0 d O m ° u) E sa O °co� Od 2 ° � 0 � 0 � � ° rEva t '° mm,Lm � oao `- y
0 0 L. 4- -c Fri C O a a) O
= ° > cow0 rom3ct - o. aa>) = -CC , 'o .a,LL .? c as dO
co 0 '00 � C 2 0 - D _l O O .E M W a) ,? M L ° a) cC .-0 a) O « ro C 0 0
2 o >, -0, 0E0c > ° E �, � 'a> wo30 > a'rn ° � 000o a
C O..0 r0 0 0 'a 0- a ca Y U C a) -O U C >. 0 -0 0. 0 d C o 0_0 :. Q
O N a N S] O m o 0)U ° G ° ,.. - 0 ,71) 005 O . E O ft s•. a C O "Ea) O _� y co
as E O O -0 4 N 5...
. 0 O C y lfl 0 O E N.r' O D C 0 .0 E m 0 .J .0 7.
.- >.R L O W a) O :O > _- a'>- a) •a) -, a) . 'C a 0-50 O a 0 E a)
2 « yEww « a o = U m ¢ Smw -°owa ° m0' as -oaa) .o ; . as
U
CD a 1_ s_
c c
Cu at ,_, 0
O 7:..
C= o ca
a) C L .. r/)
0/=
a)
L
to .a
c
m a ��7
0. a) -o y
O 0 0 -
'0^'m -0 C_. N vi as
O U 0 a
u mcIs . -o d to
cd � 3 c o .c a as•
as :0
(/), E c C .C) a 2 0
a0..comy >
O waw"«
p c 0 O
0 c n
N O .c 22 t- .N 3 as
o >O o a) '- ° C c C �?
J 0 0 N 0 .0 co a
a
nj cc E o u 0 'C 0 'E CD
m • Emma m2 �o
ti ui a E `� in _1 inz
o U N O D !D O
.. o. m > m i° co II II II H
E Ey 0 a o cq .i0) Z
Petaluma CBD Redevelopment Plan Amendment Revisions to the Draft EIR
Petaluma Community Development Commission 4. Land Use
April 12, 2001 Page 4-6
Pertinent River-Relative;,Objectives:
r • Preserve and protect the Petaluma River as a commercial navigable transportation
corridor to the extent feasible as determined by the City Council.
• Insure public access to-the Petaluma River along the fu lliength.of the river in Petaluma,
where feasible.
• Encourage the,location of water-oriented, recreational opportunities, such as the marina
and canoe rental facilities in,sections of the river that are not sensitive wildlife habitats.
• Create a riverfront route for pedestrians and bicyclists on both sides of the river, at the
river's edge for-its full length in Petaluma, where feasible.
• Provide safe pedestrian and bicycle bridges across the river.
• Strengthen and broaden the relationship between the river and downtown.
• Open up views of the river.
• Preserve and protect the Petaluma River as open space, .resource and habitat.
Pertinent River-Related Policies:
r • River-dependent commercial and industrial land uses;shall,be fostered, provided they
meet other General Plan-objectives.
r • Any actions which proposed=;to change the existing uses affecting river-front land
designated for commercial, industrial, or mixed uses.shall be reviewed;to analyze the
impact the action may'have on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers continued dredging
operations necessary to keep the Petaluma River commercially navigable.
r • Maintenance of commercial'shipping,tonnage on the river sufficient to justify continued
dredging by the U.S.:Army Corps of Engineers,is,a high priority of the City of Petaluma.
• As development and redevelopment occur, the City shall require public access to the
Petaluma River from the nearest public street and walkways. "Development"includes
the subdivision of land.
• New development or redevelopment with river frontage shall-face both the river and the
street on which it is located.
• The City shall pursue the cleanup and beautification of the river and its banks.
• Require dedication of an easement for public access:to the river for all new development
or redevelopment between Petaluma Boulevard (or First Street) and the river on its west
side, and between the nearest public street and the river on its east side.
WP5116111FE/R14-R.611
•
Petaluma CBD Redevelopment,Plan Amendment Revisions to the Draft EIR
Petaluma Community Development Commission 6. Transportation and Circulation
April 13, 2001 Page 6-16
(c) Cause'adverse effects on'the.operation of the transit, pedestrian, or bicycle circulation
network.
(d) Create a noticeable.traffic safety or functional problem'.
r When comparing levels of service between the future traffic scenario without.the project
r versus the future traffic.scenario;withthe project, a project-relatedincrease of four seconds or
r less is considered to be less than significant, since the method for`calculating delay involves
r statistical error. .Also, although not an official City policy, a project-related change of 100
r vehicles per hour (vph) on any of'the'freeway ramps has been treated in this EIR analysis as
r a significant impact, following common.practice.
6.3.3 Impacts on Roadway (Intersection) Operation
Impact 4.4.1: Intersection,Operational Impacts—PM' Peak Hour. Roadway
traffic generated by project-facilitated developmentiin the expanded project area,
under•the land use policies of the adopted Petaluma General Plan and
anticipated Central Petaluma;.Specific Plan, would contribute substantially to a
level of service impact at-one[city intersection that would be below current City
LOS standards--the Lakeville Highway/U.S. 101 southbound ramps intersection.
This project effect would`therefore represent a potentially significant impact
(see criterion (a) under subsection 6.3.2, "Significance Criteria," above).
r As shown in Table 6.3, the following eleven Petaluma intersections°are projected to fall
below the City's threshold level,ofservice standard--i.e., Would operate at LOS "D" or worse
in the year 2015 during the PM peak hour as a result of"projected cumulative urban growth
between now and the year 2015:.
• Lakeville Street/Caulfield Lane,
• East Washington Street/Lakeville Street,
• McDowell Blvd./E. Madison Street,
• Petaluma Blvd. and Lakeville^Street;
• Petaluma Blvd./East Washington Street,
• Petaluria.:Blvd. and D Street,
• Si.th and ID streets,
• Lakeville Highway.and U.S. 101 southbound,
• Lakeville Highway/Baywood Drive,
• East Washington Street and McDowell Blvd., and
WP5116111FE!R16-R.611
Petaluma CBD'Redevelopment Plan Amendment Revisions to the Draft EIR
Petaluma.Community Development Commission 6. Transportation and Circulation
April 13,'2001 Page 6-16A
• Lakeville Street/Lindberg Lane.
r All of these eleven intersections would operate below the City's' LOS standard with or
without the project, assuming the General Plan and Draft Specific Plan land uses. One of
r the eleven intersections,:Lakeville Highway and the U.S. 101 .southbound ramp, would
r experience a project-related increase,in delay of 9 seconds (i.e., excess of 4 seconds),
r representing a project-related;significant adverse impact.
WP5116111FEIR16-R.671'
Petaluma CBD Redevelopment Plan Amendment Revisions to the Draft EIR
Petaluma Community Development Commission 6. Transportation and Circulation
April 13, 2001 Page 6-17
Table.6.3
YEAR.2015 P.M. PEAK-HOUR TRAFFIC.CONDITIONS IN PETALUMA WITH PROPOSED
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT (AVERAGE DELAY IN SECONDS, ROUNDED TO
NEAREST WHOLE NUMBER)
Level of Average
r Intersection Service DelayNehicle'
r McDowell BlvdJE. Madison:Street D 27 (-1)
E. Washington Street and Maria Drive B 11
McKenzie Ave. and McDowell Blvd: South B 10
McDowell Blvd. South and McGregor Avenue B 05
McDowell Blvd. and Caulfield Lane C 16
r Lakeville Street and Caulfield Lane F (C) 77 (24) (-4)
r E. Washington`Street and Lakeville Street E 45 (-13)
r Petaluma Blvd. and Lakeville Street D 26 (-1)
Magnolia.Ave.-Payran Street Petaluma Blvd. No. C 22
Western Ave. and Petaluma Blvd. B 11
Washington St. and Kentucky St.. B 09
Western.Ave. and Kentucky.St. B 12
r Petaluma Blvd. and E. Washington St. F (E) •*(55) (--)
r Petaluma Blvd. So. and D Street D 26 (-9)
Washington Street and Howard St. C 18
E. Washington Street and Ellis St. B 10
McDowell Blvd. No. and Lynch Creek B 09
r D St. and 6th St. D 28 (+1)
Rainier Ave. and McDowell Blvd, No. C 22
Petaluma Blvd. No. and Sycamore St. B 08
Petaluma Blvd. So. And B St. B 05
Petaluma Blvd. So. And I St. B 11
Lakeville Highway and Casa Grande B 14
Lakeville Highway and Frates Rd. C 18
Frates'Rd./S. Ely Blvd. C 0*
Baywood Dr. and McDowell Blvd._So. C 17 .
Ely Blvd. and E. Washington St. C 18
r Lakeville and U.S. 101 southbound ramp D (C) 36 (22) (+9)
r Lakeville and U.S. 101 northbound ramp C 20 (-8)
r Lakeville Hwy. and Baywood Dr. D 30 (-10)
Lakeville Hwy. and Marina Dr. A 04
Lakeville Hwy. and McDowell Blvd. So. C 17
r Washington St.and McDowell'Blvd. D 38 (-9)
E. Washingtof,St. and U.S. 101 northbound B 06
E. Washington St. and U.S. 101 southbound C 16
Lakeville St. and Lindberg Lane F (B) Cr (7)
E.Washington sSt. and Liberty St. B 06
SOURCE: Dowling Associates. Traffic count data supplied by TJKM Consultants(1995) and by BayMetrics
(1997).
Bold entries do not meet the City's level of service standard of "C" or better.
italics indicate value after mitigation.
"Intersection presently unsignalized. Average delay will vary by approach and movement at intersection.
LOS:is reported for worst movement or approach.
"Delay cannot be calculated due to oversaturation of approaches..
r 1 The difference in delay between projected year 2015 traffic conditions with the project and without the
r project is indicated in parenthesis--e.g., (-4) means the introduction of the project would result in a reduced
r delay, (+9) means the introduction of the project would increase delay by 9 seconds.
WP511611IFEIRI6-R.611
Petaluma CBD RedevelopmentPlan Amendment Revisions to the Draft ER
Petaluma Community Development Commission 6. Transportation and Circulation
April 13,.2001 Page 6.18
Mitigation 4:4.1: Roadway°Operational Impact-PM Peak Hour. Improve the
Lakeville Highway/U.S. 101/Southern Crossing interchange to incorporate the
following lane geometries:
• From southbound U.S. 101: Provide three approach lanes: one right, one
through, and one left turn. This measure would require restriping"the
existing lanes. No widening would be necessary.
• Southern crossing-connection: Provide three approach lanes: one left turn
only, one through, and one right turn only.
• Lakeville Highway,Connection: Provide four eastbound (southbound)
approach lanes: two.left, one through, and one through/right; and four
westbound (northbound) approach lanes: one left, two throughs, and one
right turn only lane.
Implementation of these measures would reduce this project-related impact to a
less-than-significant-level—i.e., would result in level of service C operation.
Impact 4.4.2: Potential Conflicts Between Trucks and Other Vehicles. The
project would facilitate increased vehicular traffic on central area truck routes and
associated conflicts between industrial-related truck,traffic and other vehicle
traffic. This anticipated:effect represents a potentiallyisignificant impact (see
criterion (d) under "6.3.1 Significance Criteria" above).
Mitigation 4.4.2: Potential Conflicts Between Trucks and Other Vehicles. In
reviewing future project-facilitated development proposals for the expanded
project area, the City and PCDC shall continue to restrict use of selected
nuisance-sensitive central area streets to automobiles and small trucks only. This
measure would reduce the potential for hazards due to conflicts between truck
traffic and other vehicular traffic to a less-than-significant level.
6.3.4 Impacts on Transit
Increased Demand for Transit Service.. Project-facilitated development may generate
increased demand for central area local and interregional transit services, but would not be
expected to have a significant,adverse impact on these services. tt is expected that any
project-facilitated increase in transit ridership could be accommodated by existing and planned
service provisions without unduly affecting the adequacy of public transit services.
WP5116111FE1R16-R.611
Petaluma CBD Redevelopment Plan.Amendment Revisions to the Draft EIR
Petaluma Community Development Commission 8. Visual Factors
April 12, 2001 Page 8-9
Mitigation 8-1: Redevelopment-assisted or facilitated development along Water
r Street shall be subject to stringent design ireview,by the City's Planning
r Commission and Site Plan and Architectural Review Commission (SPARC),
based on (1) the current SPARC Design Guidelines, and (2) if adopted, the
following additional guidelines specifically identified in the Community Design
element of the Draft'Central Petaluma Specific Plan; to address visual concerns
related to short-range views.ofthe river in the vicinity of Water Street; or, (3) an
amendment to the current SPARC Design Guidelines to incorporate these added
guidelines:
Draft Specific Plan Comm-
ommunity Design Policy 1.3: Create a street tree
landscaping program with amenities for pedestrians and bicyclists (benches, bike
parking and pedestrian-scaled'lighting),
Draft Specific Plan Community Design Policy 3.2: Create a sequence of public
spaces and promenades that ensures a public-spirited river's edge.
Draft Specific Plan Design Guidelines and Standards for the North River Area:
Continuous public access a minimum of 20 feet wide,should be provided all along
the west bank of the river. With the exception of the walkway adjacent to the
planned flood control. project, this public access space should be natural in
character, with soft-surface green space and tall,trees marking the edge of the
water. A minimum 12-foot wide paved pathway should be provided.
Buildings should be set back.a minimum of 40 feet front the riverfront, and should
incorporate elements such as bay windows and porches that relate to the river
and encourage a more positive relationship between indoor and outdoor spaces.
Implementation of these design standards and guidelines would mitigate this
impact to a less-than-significant level.
WP5116111FEIR18-R.611
Petaluma CBD Redevelopment Plan Amendment Revisions to the Draft EIR
Petaluma Community Development Commission 8. Visual Factors
April 12, 2001 Page 8-12
Mitigation 8=3: Redevelopment facilitated new development in the Turning Basin
r area shall be subject to stringent design review'by the City's Planning
r Commission and SPARC, based on: (1) the current SPARC Design Guidelines;
(2) if adopted, the following additional guidelines specifically identified in the
Community Design element of the Draft Central Petaluma.Specific Plan to
address the need for a visually coherent district of buildings, streets, and open
spaces in the Turning Basin area; and/or (3) an amendment to the current
SPARC Design Guidelines to incorporate these added Turning Basin guidelines:
Draft Specific Plan Community Design Ob1ective 2: Organize buildings and
streets within the Turning Basin to concentrate pedestrian,activity within an
appropriately scaled district thatties together both sides of the river and is closely
linked to the adjacent:downtown.
Draft Specific Plan Community Design Policy 2.1: Focus people-oriented
activities (window shopping, store entrances, cafes, displays, signage) around the
Turning Basin, and locate surface parking, deliveries, trash areas, and other
ancillary services at the rear of buildings, away from•the water's edge.
Draft Specific Plan Community Design Policy 2;2: Create a public space on both
sides of the Turning Basin.
Draft Specific Plan Community Design Policy.2.3 Design buildings, streets and
parking lots with.a pedestrian scale (e.g., the length of blocks, the height and
length of walls, the amount of uninterrupted asphalt paving, the width of streets,
the distance between crosswalks, the continuity of shopfronts, the size of
signage).
Draft Specific Plan Community Design Policy 2.4: Encourage the development of
pedestrian amenities,such as benches, trash receptacles, and outdoor cafes and
sidewalk magazine stands, all of which enhance the experience of moving
through the Turning Basin area by foot.
Draft Specific Plan Community Design Policy 2.5: Create a complex and diverse
network of streets, passageways, open spaces and well-distributed parking in
order to enhance visual interest.
Implementation of these design standards;and guidelines would mitigate this
impact to a less-than-significant levet
WP511611IFE1R18-R.611
Petaluma CBD Redevelopment Plan Amendment Revisions to the Draft EIR
Petaluma Community Development,Commission 8. Visual Factors
April 12, 2001 Page 8-14
•
Mitigation 8-4: Redevelopment+facilitated new development in the Riverfront
r Warehouse District shall be subject to stringent,design review by the City's
r Planning Commission and SPARC, based on (1) the current SPARC Design
Guidelines; (2) if adopted, the following additional guidelines specifically identified
in the Community Design element of the Draft Central Petaluma Specific Plan to
address the need to protect and enhance the unique visual character of the
district and foster a visua lly coherent district of buildings, streets and open spaces
in the district; and/or (3) an amendment to the current SPARC Design Guidelines
to incorporate'these added River District guidelines:
Further visual impact assessment should be undertaken upon submission of
specific development proposals for the Riverfront Warehouse District. In addition
to materials required,for the City's SPARC review process, visual simulations
and/or shadow analysis should be required where significant new buildings or
changes in land uses are proposed.
Draft Specific Plan Community Design Objective 4: Reinforce the unique qualities
of this district, and create improved connections to and along the waterfront.
Draft Specific Plan Community Design Policy 4.2: Provide for view corridors to
the surrounding landscape.
Draft Specific Plan Community Design Policy 4.3: Minimize surface parking on
the river side of First Street:
Draft Specific Plan Community Design Policy 4:4: Encourage new uses that
respect the scale and character of the district.
Draft Specific Plan Riverfront Warehouse District--Design Standards and
Guidelines: Street ends east of First.Street should remain open in order to
enhance view corridors to the surrounding landscape.
Landscaping shall be encouraged throughout the district, on public lands and
within private parcels, in.order to achieve an overall canopy of 50 percent
coverage at maturity.
Surface parking lots shall be well landscaped, with one tree for every four stalls
and a 50 percent coverage of paved areas at maturity. Surface parking lots for
nonresidential use shall be limited in size to no more than 10 cars along the river
side of First Street. Oh inland blocks, no more than 20 percent coverage of
(continued)
WP511611IFEIR18-R.611
Petaluma CBD Redevelopment Plan Amendment Revisions to the Draft EIR
Petaluma Community Development Commission 9. Biological Resources
• April 12, 2001 Page 9-13
permit be obtained if removal is:'necessary. The City maintains mist of registered heritage
or landmark trees.
A row of five eucalyptus along Copeland Street.north of East D.Street were designated with
landmark status in 1993 because of their distinctive visual character and age: This portion
of the Existing Area has.been proposed in the Draft Specific Plan for mixed use, and the
Draft Specific Plan "Illustrative Concept" shows a combination of residential/mixed use
along the Copeland Street frontage where the trees are located. A considerable setback
would be required around the base of these trees if they'are'to be preserved. Falling limbs
and debris may createnuisance and at times hazardous conditions which may conflict with
redevelopment facilitated intensification of land uses and human activity at or in the vicinity
of the trees.
Mitigation 9-1: Phorto or as a condition of finalization of plans for individual
development projects along Copeland Street,,a detailed assessment of the five
landmark eucalyptus-trees along Copeland Street:shall bei.conducted by a
certified arborist to determine their appropriateness for preservation and any
hazard they may pose.to humans. The assessment shall specify development
setbacks, and methods to reduce the hazard of limb drop should be defined, if
the trees are considered suitable for preservation. If.it is determined that the
trees pose too great a threat to human safety, a permit for their removal shall be
obtained pursuant to Section 8.28.100 of the Heritage,and Landmark Trees
r Ordinance of the City. City review of any;such permit request shall include
r consultation with the City's Tree Advisory Committee.
Impact 9-2: toss-of Special Status,Plant Species. Redevelopment facilitated
development cor sistentwith. the adopted Petaluma General .Plan and anticipated
(Draft) Petaluma Central Specific Plan may result'in the loss of special status
plant species. This possibility is considered to be a potentially significant
impact (see criteria:(a), (b) and (e) under subsection.9.3.1, "Significance
Criteria," above).
(a) Special Status Species--Plants.. While no special-status plant species have been
reported from the project area, there is a remote possibility that populations occur on the
relatively'undisturbed portions of aquatic habitat along the.Petaluma River. If populations of
plant species of concern are present; proposed modifications associated with shoreline
improvements within the aquatic habitat of the river could result in their loss. Such
modifications include removal of pilings:and other partially submerged structures which
could serve as substrate'for Mason's lilaeopsis.
(b) Special Status Species--Animals. No adverse impacts to terrestrial or aquatic animal
species are anticipated with implementation of the proposed redevelopment plan
WP511611IFEIRI9-8.611
Petaluma CBD Redevelopment Plan Amendment Revisions to the Draft EIR
Petaluma Community Development Commission 18. CEQA-Required Assessment Conclusions
April'13, 2001 Page 18-3
r 18.5 ENERGY CONSERVATION
• r The proposed redevelopment plan amendment includes.a number of proposed actions which
r are intended to internalize central area vehicular trips, encourage transit use and other
r alternative travel modes, bring structures up to current building standards (including energy
r efficiency standards), and provide improved housing opportunities, employment opportunities,
r and community support services (retail, entertainment, commercial services, etc.) in the
r central area, thereby reducing interregional trips, including out-commuting, and reducing other
r future inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary consumption of energy. The following specific
r project actions (from section 3.4 and especially Table 3.2 herein) would have beneficial
r energy conservation effects by reducing future inefficient, wasteful and unnecessary
r consumption of energy:
r • facilitating central area intensification and mixed use,
r • assisting in the rehabilitation of existing substandard or dilapidated structures, facilitating
central area vehicular access transit improvements,
r • providing incentives to encourage mixed-use development oriented to transit,
r • promoting development of central area businesses,
r • promoting development of residential uses on upper floors,
r • assisting central area transit improvements,
r • planning and implementing a program to add central area bike lanes,
r • developing a transportation demand management program that discourages single-
occupancy vehicle trips and encourages use of alternative modes of transportation,
r • improving central area parking provisions,
r • expanding code enforcement, and
r • encouraging home renovation.
r The project would facilitate central area development and intensification consistent with the
r City's General Plan and anticipated future central area specific plan and, by encouraging
r centralization and use of alternative transportation modes; would tend to reduce future intra-
r and inter-regional vehicular travel and associated consumption of regional fuel supplies.
r Future General Plan buildout without the redevelopment plan would tend to be less centralized
r and less energy efficient.
r For the reasons described above, the project would have an overall energy conserving effect.
WP5116111FEIR\18-R.611
Petaluma CBD Redevelopment Plan Amendment Revisions to the Draft EIR
Petaluma Community Development.Commission 18. CEQA-Required Assessment Conclusions
April 12, 2001 Page 18-3A
r '18:6 EFFECTS FOUND,NOT TO::BE SIGNIFICANT
• The Petaluma Community Development•Agency, in,its Initial Study for the project, determined
that a number of specific possible environmental effects would:not occur, would be
insignificant, or would be adequately addressed in subsequent PCDa or City development
review procedures without further environmental assessment in this program EIR. These
environmental impact categoriesare identified in Appendix 21.2 of this EIR, which contains
the Initial Study Checklist and narrative.
WP511611 I FE/R 118-R.611