Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 2003-214 N.C.S. 10/27/2003.Resolution No.2003-214N.C.S. of the City of Petaluma, California RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA ADOPTING FINDINGS AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND APPROVING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) FOR THE REDWOOD GATEWAY RETAIL CENTER PROJECT LOCATED AT 1363 NORTH MCDOWELL BOULEVARD (APN 007-411-20 & 21) The City Council of the City of Petaluma finds and determines that: WHEREAS, a planning application was filed by Robertson Properties Group; requesting approval of an amendment to the approved Planned Community District (PCD) for the "Redwood Gateway Retail Center." The proposed amendment would modify the Development Plan originally approved for the Petaluma Cinema Expansion to allow the development of a 166,713 gross square foot retail center with three major tenant spaces, including a Kohl's Department Store (approximately 96,000 sq. ft.), additional retail space, and one pad with drive-through facilities; and WHEREAS, the City of Petaluma is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) with respect to land development approval within the City linuts; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is substantially consistent with the "future development scenario for Parcel C" as analyzed in the Redwood Technology Center Environmental Impact Report (EIR); and WHEREAS, on March 3, 2003, the City Council held duly noticed public hearing and certified the Redwood Technology Center Final EIR, which also analyzed the environmental effects of the project in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. WIIEREAS, the custodian of record of proceedings for this project is the City of Petaluma Director of Community Development; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 15097 of CEQA Guidelines, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared to outline procedures for implementing all mitigation measures in the Final EIR; and WHEREAS, the Petaluma Environmental Review Guidelines and the CEQA guidelines require that the decision-making agency balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve a project. If these benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects may be considered "acceptable." The decision-making agency must state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the Final EIR and/or other information in the Resolution No. 2003-214 N.C.S. record. The statement of overriding considerations must be supported by substantial evidence in the record; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby make the following findings: 1. All of the significant impacts identified in the Final EIR, with the exception of Impact CIR-3 described further below, has been or can be mitigated to a level of less-than- significant. 2. The Final EIR identifies one significant unavoidable impact: The Old Redwood Highway overpass across Highway 101 would deteriorate to unacceptable service levels (Impact CIR-3). 3. This impact would occur with or without the project. because of capacity constraints on the existing two-lane freeway overpass. 4. The Final EIR identifies Mitigation Measure CIR-3, which provides for afair-share contribution to widen the overpass to provide four lanes. However, widening of the overpass prior to the completion of the project would not be economically feasible, since complete funding for the widening project, estimated in 1996 to cost $12 Million, is not secured. 5. Project Alternatives analyzed in the Final EIR. An EIlZ must describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, which feasibly could obtain most of the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. The Final EIR analyzed four alternatives to the Redwood Technology Center project ("Center"): (1) No Development Alternative, (2) Mitigated Project Alternative, (3) Office-Only Alternative and (4) Pedestrian-Centered Alternative. The City adopts the Mitigated Project Alternative, which is the project as originally proposed, but with incorporation of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR, plus an on-site daycare facility as recommended by the Planning Commission. The City finds that the other three alternatives are either infeasible or would not achieve the basic objectives of the project. Findings for the other three alternatives are stated below: a. No Development AlterEiative. Under the No Development Alternative, construction of the Center would not occur. The Redwood Technology Center site would remain vacant, with the existing, vacant Pacific Theaters complex remaining in place on the adjacent site. Resolution No. 2003-214 N.C.S. Page 2 Comparison to the Mitigated Project. The No Development Alternative generally would have fewer impacts than the Mitigated Project Alternative, although would have substantially worse public policy impacts (site would not be used for economic development and employment generation) and worse visual and urban design impacts. The No Development Alternative. would fail to meet and promote nearly all of the objectives of the City and of the Center. Finding. The No Development Alternative is hereby rejected because it would fail to meet and promote nearly all of the project objectives, and would not fulfill the General Plan goal of utilizing the site for economic development and employment opportunities (particularly higher-paying opportunities) for Petalumans. b. Office-Only Alternative. The Office-Only Alternative assumes that the proposed Redwood Technology Center project would be developed as originally proposed; however the Pacific Theaters site would be developed only with 290,000 square feet of office uses, rather than the retail uses presently envisioned. Comparison to the Mitigated Project. The Office-Only Alternative was developed primarily to address land use alternatives for the adjacent Pacific Cinemas property (Parcel C), and is not relevant to the Redwood Technology project. With adoption of recommended mitigation measures, the Office-Only Alternative would be equivalent to the Mitigated Project Alternative (with respect to the Center which is the subject of these findings, but. not with respect to the Pacific Theaters development which is not the subject of these findings). Finding. The Office-Only Alternative would not meet the basic project objectives of providing a retail center. Furthermore, with regard to the one significant unavoidable traffic impact, the Office-Only Alternative would not reduce this impact to a less-than- signif cant level. c. Pedestrian-Centered Alternative. Under the Pedestrian-Centered Alternative, the Redwood Technology Center site would be developed with the same square footage of office/research and development uses as the Mitigated Project Alternative, but the site plan and office buildings would be redesigned to front. on the street edge of North McDowell Boulevard (the main public access to the site) and Redwood Way (on the internal portion of the site). To meet flood protection requirements, these buildings would have to be elevated seven to ten feet above the grade of the adjacent sidewalks and roadways, and would have to include parking underneath. Comparison to the Mitigated Project. While the Pedestrian-Centered Alternative site plan included in the Final EIR was intended to further facilitate pedestrian circulation on the site, this alternative was developed prior to completion of the hydrological analysis of the project, and does not take into account the measures that would be necessary to meet the flood protection requirements of the project. Specifically, the Pedestrian-Centered Alternative would require that the buildings Resolution No. 2003-214 N.C.S. Page 3 that front the intersection of North McDowell Boulevard and Redwood Way to be elevated (with parking underneath) seven to ten feet above grade of the sidewalks and roadways in order to meet run-off and flood protection requirements. The resulting building pad elevations would introduce certain aesthetic and massing issues that would threaten the desired effect of providing a more pedestrian- friendly environment on the site. Finding: The Pedestrian-Centered Alternative is hereby rejected as infeasible because it would require the building pads proposed near the intersection of North McDowell Boulevard and Redwood Way to be elevated (with parking underneath) seven to ten feet above grade of the sidewalks and roadways, thereby negating the desired benefits of providing a more pedestrian-friendly environment on the site. Mixed-Use Alternative. In addition to the four alternatives mentioned above, during the review process for the project, a request was made that analysis of a mixed-use alternative be provided. A mixed-use alternative would place residential uses in an area completely isolated from any other residential or housing-related uses (the site is surrounded by a freeway, a major roadway and light industrial uses). There are no other residential uses located near the site. A mixed-use alternative would render the housing units relatively unmarketable, making amixed-use alternative economically infeasible. Statement of Overriding Considerations. As indicated above, all of the project alternatives that were considered are either infeasible or would not achieve the basic objectives of the project. In addition, although the mitigation measures required by the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will reduce all but one significant impact to levels that are less than significant, the project will result in one significant unavoidable impact. This one remaining impact is acceptable in light of the economic, legal, social and technological benefits that the approval of the project will make possible. The City Council finds that each of the overriding considerations set forth below constitutes separate and independent grounds for finding that the benefits of the project outweigh the significant unavoidable impact of the project and is an overriding consideration warranting approval.. of the project. These matters are supported by substantial evidence in the record that includes but is not limited to the Final EIR, staff reports and analyses, oral and written testimony, and other documents referenced in this Statement of Overriding Consideration and its adopting resolution. The principal benefits include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. In response to rapid growth within the City of Petaluma in the 1960s and 1970s, the City instituted a series of growth control measures starting in 1975, with the objective of limiting residential growth and making sure that City infrastructure keeps up with that growth. One of the growth control tools established by the City is Urban Growth Boundary, designed to concentrate further development within Resolution No. 2003-214 N.C.S. Page 4 existing infill sites, as well as establish a realistic ratio between growth and development on both the east and west sides of the U.S. 101 Freeway. The project site is within the Urban Growth Boundary and is an underutilized commercial site. 2. In Petaluma, commercial, retail, and industrial uses are concentrated in the downtown area and. at the north end of the City, in proximity to U.S. 101. The Land Use Map and Land Use Element of the City's General Plan identify and describe certain large sites within Petaluma that are appropriate for "special commercial" uses. Special commercial uses are intended to compliment the City's existing retail base, and to produce sales tax revenue. Special commercial areas provide sites for creative, well-designed master planned commercial. facilities that add significantly to the City's tax base by capturing local tax dollars that now go elsewhere. The project site is located in a "special commercial" use area, and the project would represent a major commercial development that would generate significant local tax revenues. 3. The City's Land Use Map identifies only four sites within Petaluma that are appropriate for special commercial uses. Each of these sites is at the north end of Petaluma, immediately adjacent to U.S. 101. Three of the ..four sites are either fully built out, or partially built out with entitlements in process to complete the build-out. The first site is on the north side of Old Redwood Highway and adjacent to U.S. 101 (west side); this site has been built-out as a driving range. The second site is on the north side of Old Redwood Highway and adjacent to U.S. 101 (east side); this site has been built out as the Redwood Business Park. The third site is farther south, just on the west side of U.S. 101 and is already partially built out, with a variety of auto dealerships and an outlet mall. 4. The project site is the only currently available site in Petaluma for the Kohl's project that is designated as a special commercial site in the City's Land Use Plan. Approval of the Project will further Petaluma's objectives for establishing specialty commercial uses within the City of Petaluma, both to increase the City's tax base and provide more convenient shopping opportunities for its residents. 5. The project supports and furthers a variety of the goals, policies and objectives set forth in the Petaluma General Plan. The General Plan is the comprehensive statement of the development policies of the City of Petaluma. The plan. includes the required elements for a General Plan set forth in Government Code Section 65302. 6. Chapter 8 of the General Plan (Local Economy) sets forth the City's objectives, goals and policies it believes are necessary to expand and diversify the local economy. The project directly furthers a number of these goals and objectives, as follows: Resolution No. 2003-214 N.C.S. Page 5 a. The project furthers Goal 1 of Chapter 8 by providing jobs for Petaluma works and tax revenues for the City by expanding and maintaining diversity in Petaluma's economic base and focusing development efforts on clean non-polluting industries. Th.e project is a retail project, not an industry that brings pollution or hazardous materials to the City. b. The project will further Goal 2 of Chapter 8 by enhancing the City's sales tax revenues by strengthening Petaluma's retail sector, which will serve the needs of local residents as well as encourage shoppers from outside the community. The project consists of a mix of neighborhood-serving retail uses (small shops and restaurants) as well as a large format anchor or "big box" tenant that will serve the needs of both Petaluma residents, as well as encouraging shoppers from outside of Petaluma to shop there. The project site is located directly adjacent to major thoroughfares and highways, thereby facilitating access to the site by both Petaluma residents and shoppers from outside the area. c. Local Economy Objective (c) directs the City to provide for the continued expansion of employment at a minimum rate of 750 full-time jobs annually. The project will further this objective by adding hundreds jobs to the Petaluma community. d. Local Economy Objective (g) encourages the City to maintain. and expand Petaluma's existing retail base. The General Plan provides that Petaluma's economic vitality and fiscal health can be strengthened by a more robust retail sector. Petaluma's existing retail base and the existing scale of retail development should be maintained and expanded. The project furthers this objective by providing the opportunity to attract a unique and desirable retailer as the anchor tenant to the proposed shopping center, providing new shopping alternatives to both Petaluma residents and people outside the City. 7. As described in Chapter 4 (Land Use and Growth Management) of the Petaluma General Plan, Petaluma is currently well short of a full buildout ofnon-residential land uses within the Urban Growth Boundary. The General Plan currently shows 322 acres of land that has been developed with commercial and office uses, out of a total of 6,630 acres of land within the City limits. The General Plan (Figure 4- 4) shows that within the undeveloped area of the City, 920 acres of this available land is zoned for non-residential uses. There is more than sufficient land in the Cityto accommodate the project and other commercial development. 8. The project site is also near areas designated for City expansion. Exhibit A.1 and Exhibit A.2 of the General Plan, showing Urban Growth Boundary expansion. areas, identifies two significant proposed areas of development expansion in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, not only is there existing undeveloped commercial real estate within the Urban Growth Boundary (including the project Resolution No. 2003-214 N.C.S. Page 6 site), there are two sizeable sites at the north end of Petaluma, near the project site, that the City is currently considering including within the Urban Growth Boundary. This is an area where this type of commercial activity should be permitted and encouraged. The project will further these goals. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) The City Council finds that the a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), attached hereto as Exhibit A, has been prepared in accordance with Section 15097 of CEQA Guidelines, and outlines procedures for implementing all. mitigation measures in the Final EIR. Under the power and authority conferred upon this Council by the Charter of said City. REFERENCE: I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was .introduced and adopted by the Approved as to Council of the fj,ity of Petaluma at CRe~gular) (Adjourned) (Specia~~meeting - for on the .........27 ............. day of ........~..to er................................, 20......, by the )~• following vote: •••••••••• ~•~' •~•••••• ••••• ity Attorney AYES: Canevaro, Mayor Glass, Harris, Healy, Moynihan, Vice Mayor O'Brien, Torliatt NOES: None ABSENT: None ATTEST: ................. ... ......... ............. .... .. ............................. City Cle Mayor Council File .. .. 2D Q 3 -Z T ~ ............. . Res. Na ............_........_..........N.C.S. REDWOOD T E C H N O L O G Y C E N T E R FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CHAPTER ~ M I. T I G A T I O N MONITORING P R O G R A M bA ro 0.. TABLE 24 SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE 6SEDWOOD TECHNOLOGY CENTER Party Agency Responsible Responsible Monitoring for Implementation for Monitoring Timing or Mitigation Measure Implementation. Timing Monitoring Action Frequency PUBLIC POLICY POLICY-1: Operation of the proposed project,should include Applicant Before'final employee Transportation Demand Management programs to approval of project encourage vehicle. trip reduction. proposal LAND USE AND PLANNING Community Review and Development approval of Department proposed plans and trip reduction programs Once There are no significant land use and planning impacts; therefore,. no mitigation. measures are necessary. POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT.-AND HOUSING CU z ~_ N f~l 0 0 N O z >r 0 a 0 ~~ x There are no signif::cant population, employment and housing impacts; therefore, no mitigation measures are necessary. REDWOOD TECHNOLOGY C E N T E R FINAL E N V I R O N M E N T A L I M P A C T R E P O R T CHAPTER ~: MITIGATION MONITORING P R O G R A M ai b0 ro ~, Party Agency Responsible Responsible Monitoring for Implementation for Monitoring Timing or Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Monitoring Action Frequency TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION CIR-1: Each component of the project should provide its fair share contribution.(at the proporCion for the Old Redwood Highway/ North McDowell Boulevard intersection shown in Table 7) to accomplish the following: a: Add a right turn overlap to the signal operations for the southbound right turn movement on North McDowell Boulevard to westbound Old Redwood Highway. b: Extend the northbound left turn lane on North McDowell Boulevard from its approximate current length of 500 fee"t to approximately600 feet. The space.needed to complete this improvement is currently a center two-way left-turn lane, and therefore will require no additional right-of-way. c: Add a center median barrier on North McDowell .Boulevard between Old Redwood Highway and Redwood W,ay to delineate left turn pockets at the two intersections, and prohibit left turn movements into and out of private driveways along the street segment. Applicant To be paid prior to Community building permit Development Department Collection of Once fees vi v z ~_ N M 0 0 N 0 z c 0 0 REDWOOD TECHNOLOGY C E N T E R FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT p E P O R T CF4APT ER ] Mf Tf GATION MONITORING PROGRAM O tV bD 0.. Party Agency Responsible Responsible Monitoring for Implementation for Monitoring Timing or Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Monitoring Action Frequency CIR-2: Each component of the project should provide its fair share contribution (arthe proportion shown in Table 7 for the Old Redwood Highway/101 North Ramps intersection) to accomplish the following: a: Provide an additional right turn lane on the northbound off-ramp. b: Widen Old Redwood Highway to provide three continuous eastbound lanes between this intersection and the Old Red- wood Highway/North McDowell Boulevard intersection. Applicant To be paid prior to building permit Community Development Department Collection of fees Once CIR-3: Each component of the project should provide its fair Applicant To be paid prior to Community Collection of Once share contribution (at the proportion shown in Table 7 for the building permit Development ~ fees Old Redwood Highway Overpass) to the widening~of the Old Department Redwood Highway freeway overpass to four lanes. This improvement would correspondingly provide two westbound through lanes on Old Redwood Highway at the Old Redwood Highway/101 North Ramps intersection and two eastbound - thtough lanes on Old Redwood Highway at the Old Redwood Highway/-101 South Ramps intersection. vi U z N M o° N 0 z 0 ~, O` ~'. REDWOOD T E C H N O ~ O G T C E N T E R F I N A L ENVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R E P O R T C H A P T,E R ~; MITIGATION M O N I T O R I N G P R O G R A.M b0 ca 0. Party Agency Responsible Responsible Monitoring for Implementation for Monitoring Timing or Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Monitoring Action Frequency CIR-4: The intersection of North McDowell Boulevard and City Department Construction of Community Review and Once Redwood Way should be signalized with separate left turn of Public Facilities the project or Development approval of phasing on North McDowell Boulevard. An additional south- and Services, with when LOS D is Department proposed bound lane on North McDowell Boulevard should be costs to be paid by reached, which plans constructed between Old Redwood Highway and Redwood applicants ever comes first Way,.becoming a right turn lane into the project at the North vi McDowell Boulevard/Redwood Way intersection. Applicant Bond for U z improvement N prior to issuance o of building permit 0 z ,; 0 . ~ 0 x REDWOOD T E C H N O L O G Y C E N T E R F I N A L ENVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R E P O R T CHAPTER 7: MITIGATION MONITORING P R O G R A M Party Agency Responsible Responsible Monitoring for Implementation for Monitoring Timing or Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Monitoring Action Frequency CIR-5: The secondary access points to the project on North On-Site On-Site: Prior to Community Review and Once McDowell Boulevard should be limited to right turns in and out Improvements: issuance of Development approval of through on-site channelization and the installation of a raised • Applicants development Department proposed median island on North McDowell Boulevard. permit plans Off-Site Median:. City"Department. of Pulilic:Facilities and Services,. with costs to be paid by applicants Applicant Off=Site: Priot to project occupancy Bond for improvement prior to issuance of building permit N by 0. U z N 0 0 N O z 0 0 x R E D W O O D T E c H N O L O G r C E N T E R FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT R E P O R T CHAPTER ~: MITIGATION MONITORING P R O G R A M M N Oq a Party Agency Responsible Responsible Monitoring for Implementation for Monitoring Timing or Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Monitoring Action Frequency GIR-6: In order to create a better pedestrian scale and to encourage pedestrian.trips, the proposed project should provide: a: Sidewalk facilities along the project frontage, including curb bulb-out extensions at the driveways. b: Pedestrian crossing improvements at the intersection of - North;McDowell Boulevard/ Redwood Way as part of the signal installation required by Mitigation Measure CIR-1. These.crossing improvements should consist of crosswalk striping, a pedestrian traffic.signal phase as part of the traffic §gnal installation and curb bulb-out extensions at the .corners. of the intersection. c: Anew transit shelter on the east side of'North McDowell Boulevard. Applicant Prior to issuance Community of building permit .Development Department Review and Once approval of proposed improvement plans CIR-7: On-site pedestrian connections should be improved by providing safe pedestrian crosswalks.at.central, convenient locations so as to allow direct pedestriaa access between and among all three parcels. Pedestrian amenities, such as street furtiiture,'landscaping and fountains, should be included in detailed site plans for pedestrian circulation routes. Applicant Prior to issuance of building permit and shown on plans submitted for SPARC review Community Development Department Review and approval of proposed plans Once vi U z N 0 0 N 0 z 0 ~~ 0 ~. a R E D W OOD T E C N N O L O G Y C E N T E R FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT R E P O R T CHAPTER ]: M. I T I G A T I O N MONITORING P R O G R A M d. u b0 0. Party Responsible Agency Responsible Monitoring for Implementation for Monitoring Timing or Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Monitoring Action Frequency CIR-8a: Each building over 10,000 square feet in size should Applicant Prior to issuance Community Review and Once include employee showers at a proportion detailed in Appendix of building permit Development approval of A of the City's Bicycle Plan. and shown on Department proposed plans submitted plans for SPARC review CIR-86: Each parcel should contain bicycle lockers and racks in Applicant Prior to issuance Community Review and Once the proportions established in Sections 20 301 and 20-401 of of development Development approval of Appendix A of the City Bicycle Plan. permit Department proposed and sfiown on plans plans submitted for'SPARC review INFRASTRUCTURE AND COMMUNITY.SERVICES SERV-la: The use of,potable water for irrigation should be Applicant Prior to issuance Community Review and Once minimized. The developer should follow the Sonoma County of Building Permit Development approval of Low Water Use Landscaping Guidelines and/or the SCWA's Department landscaping handbook for'the design of water conserving landscaping. and irrigation - plans 'SERV-lb: The proposed project should utilize low-flow toilets Applicant Prior'to issuance Community Review and Once (as required by the Uniform Plumbing Code) and flow-reducing of Building Permit Development. approval or aerators on sinks. Department construction _ plans U z v N t+~ 0 0 N 0 z 0 '~ 0 z. REDWOOD TECHNOLOGY C E N T E R FINAL E N V I R O N M E N T A L IMPACT R E P O R T CHAPTER ~: MITIGATION M O N I T O R I N G P R O G R A M Party Agency Responsible Responsible Monitoring for Implementation for Monitoring Timing or Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Monitoring Action Frequency VISUAL $t URBAN DESIGN VISUAL-1: The landscaping plan should include natural Applicant vegetation. and other landscaping features along the southern sides of Building A2 and Buildings B1 and B2 that provides attractive landscaped views framing the buildings from Highway lOl,and does not create a separation on Parcel B between the breezeway and the pedestrian trail. Prior to issuance Community of SPARC Development approval Department Review and Once approval of .proposed design + BIOLOGY BIO-1: Wetlands should be created on-site and off-site at an .Applicant Prior to:issuance Community Written Once amount at least equal in acreage to the wetlands that would be of grading or Development verification of filled by the project. The detailed on-site and off-site mitigation construction Department acceptance by plans should-be implemented following review and approval by permits regional the City, the US Army Corps of Engineers and San Francisco agencies Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. Any grading and construction permits should not be issued until the applicant has submitted evidence to the City of Petaluma that authorization has`been obtained from jurisdictional-agencies to allow for proposed wetland.fill activities, and that adequate mitigation for the-loss of wetlands has been provided. CO a v~ U z a N M 0 0 N O z 0 0 REDWOOD T E C H N O L O G Y C E N T E R F I N A L ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT R E P O R T CHAPTER ~ MITIGATION MONITORiN.G PROGRAM on a Party Responsible Agency Responsible Monitoring for Implementation for Monitoring Timing_or Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Monitoring Action Frequency BIO-2a: Detailed surveys should be conducted by a qualified botanist in the spring and eazly summer (late March/early April and late May/early June) to confirm presence or absence of any special-status plant species on the off-site mitigation lands. The surveys should be conducted according to the survey guidelines of the CDFG. BIO-26: If any special-status, plant species are encountered, appropriate mitigation plans,should;be prepared and implemented.in-consultation'witfi the CDFG and USFWS, depending on the status of the. species. This''may`include modifications to the extent of'proposed grading to avoid identified populations or alteration of `surface hydrology, and possibly salvage and re-establishment of plant populations at alternative locations, where technically feasible. Applicant Applicant Survey prior to plan development Prior to approval of grading or construction permit Community Development Department Community Development Department Review and approval of survey findings Review and approval of proposed plans - Once Once U z ~_ N M 0 0 N 0 z 0 ._ 0 v x .REDWOOD TECHNOLOGY CENTER FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CHAPTER 7: MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM r a~ on m a Mitigation Measure Party Agency Responsible Responsible for Implementation for Implementation Timing Monitoring .HYDROLOGY HYDRO-1: The Applicant should prepare and implement a flood management plan for the proposed projecrsite that specifies: ® Procedures to evacuate tenants and customers from the complex should flooding hamper egress. ® Procedures to evacuate vehicles from parking areas. that could experience flood depths of six inches or greater. ® Procedures to prevent. access to flooded parkingsareas and access roads. ® The property management personnel. (by position and name) that are responsible for maintaining and implementing the flood management plan.. The plan should be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to occupancy of any structure. HYDR02: During the construction period, the contractor should comply wish local, state and Federal regulations pursuant to he National' Pollution Discharge Elimination System regulations for General Construction Activities. Applicant Prior to occupancy Community Development Department Applicant During construction Community Development Department Monitoring Monitoring Timing or Action Frequency Review and Once approval of proposed plan vi U z ~_ N M 0 0 N 0 z 0 ._ 0 a rx Inspection of Weekly during construction construction REDWOOD TECHNOLOGY C E N T E R FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL I M P A c T R E P O R T CHAPTER 7: MITIGATION MONITORING P R O G R A M W bq a Party Agency Responsible Responsible Monitoring for Implementation for Monitoring Timing or Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Monitoring Action Frequency HYDRO-3a: Best Management Practices (BMPs) should be Applicant Physical. improve- Community Review of Once implemented such as in-line oil and.grease traps, sediment traps, ments: prior to Development plans good house keeping or other measures as described in approval of con- :Department Industrial/Commercial Best Management Practice: Handbooks and struction permit Staff Recommendations for New and Redevelopment Controls for Storm Water Programs. On-going main- Community Site Inspect HYDRO-3b: Storm drain inlets should be stenciled and signs Applicant should be displayed or notices provided to project tenants.and their clients requesting. that waste or debris not be discharged into the storm drain system. v~ U z N f+l 0 0 N 0 z 0 0 x tenance: ongoing Development .inspection operations in Department response to any complaints Prior to occupancy Community Site Once Development inspection Department HYDRO-4a: All utilities on Parcel A.and Parcel B should be floodproofed. Applicant During construction Building Department, Department of Public Facilities and Services Construction Once or as inspection needed during construction REDWOOD T E C H N O L O G Y C E N T E R F I N A L ENVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R E P O R T CHAPTER 7: MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Pa~Y Agency Responsible Responsible Monitoring for Implementation for Monitoring Timing or Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Monitoring Action Frequency HYDRO-46: Development on Parcel C should incorporate the Applicant During Building Construction Once or as following requiremencs: construction Department, inspection needed during ® Elevate construction.so that the finished floor elevation Department of construction of all buildings is two feet above the 10..0-year flood level. Public ® Floodproof all utilities. Facilities and Services O Meet the "zero net fill requirement.° _ ® Provide technical analysis to demonstrate. that proposed graifng at the site will not increase the flow rate or flood elevations upstream or downstream of the project site. NOISE NOISE-la: Construction truek•traffic should use the routes Applicant At the start of and City which result in the east noise impact for existing developed during Construction residential receptors. Accessing the site from Highway 101 and construction Inspector Old Redwood Highway is recommended whenever possible. ,NOISE-16: During noisy phases (e.g., use of heavy impact Applicant One week prior to Community equipment}, occupants of buildings located within 100 feet of commencement of Development active construction areas should be rovided written notification p construction Department so they can prepare for these noiry periods. Inspection Weekly during construction and in response to; any- complaints Review of Once notice C1 v 0. vi U z fV r, 0 0 N 0 Z 0 0 ri 286 REDWOOD TECHNOLOGY CENTER, FINAL E N V I R O N M E N T A L IMPACT R E P O R T CHAPTER I: MITIGATION MONITORING P R O G R A M O N bQ R Party Agency Responsible Responsible Monitoring IViitigation Measure for Implementation Implementation Timing for Monitoring Monitoring Action Timing or Frequency NOISE-lc: The construction schedule should be posted at public locations in the project area so office occupants can prepare for any noisy construction periods. Applicant On-going during construction Community Review of Development notice Department Weekly vi U z a N f'rl O O N O z G O .~ O H N REDWOOD TECHNOLOGY C E N T E R F I N A L ENVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R E T O R T CHAPTER ~ MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Mitigation Measure Party Agency Responsible Responsible Monitoring for Implementation for Monitoring Timing or Implementation Timing Monitoring Action Frequency AIR AIR-1: The Bay Area Air Quality Management District has Applicant At the start of and City Review of Weekly during promulgated.the following set of guidelines to control impacts during Construction construction construction from fugitive dust (I'MI~ that results from normal construction construction Inspector plans; On- and in response activities. Incorporation of these control measures would going. to any mitigate construction related PM~o impacts: - inspection complaints ® Water all active construction areas at least twice daily and more often during windy periods. Active areas adjacent to residences should be kept damp at all times.. ® Cover all hauling trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard. Dust-proof chutes shall be used as appropriate to load debris onto trucks during demolition. ® Pave, apply water at least twice daily, or apply (non-toxic) , soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas. ® Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas and sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is deposited onto the adjacent.roads. ® I`iydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (i.e., previously-graded areas that are inactive for 10 days or more). ® Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply (non-tonic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles. N N b0 cd 0. vi U z c fV r, 0 0 N 0 z c 0 0 a~ REDWOOD T E C H N O L O G T C E N T E R FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT CHAPT-ER ~; MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM Party Agency Responsible Responsible Monitoring for Implementation for Monitoring Timing or Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Monitoring Action Frequency ® Limit traff><c speeds on any unpaved roads to 15 mph. ® Replant vegetation,in disturbed areas as:quickly as possible. ® Suspend any activitie;that cause visible dust plumes, which cannot be controlled by watering. AIR-2a: Building, design techniques that reduce area=source Applicant Prior to approval Community Review .and emissions should be implemented. Measures should include: of project design Development approval of ® Orienting buildings and include landscaping (e.g., shade trees) Department - proposed to maximize natural cooling. plans ® Installing centralized space and water heating and/or use of solar water: heating. ® Providing outdoor electrical outlets and encourage use of electric powered landscape•:equipment. Once N N N bA 0. U z v N 0 0 N O z 0 .~ 0 a RED WOOD TECHNOLOGY CENTER F I N A L ENVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R E P O R T CHAPTER ~ MITIGATION MONITORING P R O G R A M Party Agency Responsible Responsible Monitoring for Implementation for Monitoring Timing or Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Monitoring Action Frequency AIR<2b: Measures to reduce automobile trips should be Applicant Prior to issuance Community Review and Once implemented, thus reducing mobile source emissions. Measures of building permit Development approval of should include: Department proposed ® Developing a rideshare program that would. be implemented plans and trip by all future employers. reduction ® Constructing transit facilities such as bus turnouts and program shelters that are easily pedestrian-accessible to all uses. Such Annual Annually facilities would have clearly legible transit routes and ~ report submitted to schedules. posted. Community ® Consulting with transit providers during design and review Development to facilitate transit service to the site. Department ® Providing onsite or nearby retail services for future for review employees at the site. ® Providing onsite or nearby childcare facilities within walking distance of the site. ® Providing preferential parking to carpools and vanpools for office buildings. ® Providing protected, secure, and convenient bicycle parking for employees at all uses within the project. ® Providing a shower and locker facility for site employees that birycle or walk. M (V CO c0 0.. CU z tV r, 0 0 N 0 z c 0 0 z. RED W-OOD TECHNOLOGY CENTER F I N A L ENVIRONMENTAL I M P A C T R E P O R T CHAPTER 7: MITIGATION MONITORING P R O G R A M Party Agency Responsible Responsible Monitoring for Implementation for Monitoring Timing or Mitigation Measure Implementation Timing Monitoring Action. Frequency ® Providing short-term bicycle parking for retail customers and other non-commute trips that would be more.convenient than auto parking. 0 Providing safe and. convenient pedestrian and bicycle access to all uses on the site. AIR-2c: In addition to the trip reductions that would result Applicant Prior to issuance Community Review and O from Mitigation Measure AIR-26, the number of daily trips nce of building permit Development approval of should be reduced by approximately 1,300. In order for NOx Department proposed emissions from direct and indirect product sources to be below the BAAQMD significance thresholds, total daily trip plans generation in 2005 should not exceed 8,200 daily trips. V N N bq ca Q-. U z v N M O 0 N O z G 0 0 a~ SZ a$Ed 'S~~'~I bCZ-£OOZ 'oN uoiln~osa~ REDWOOD TECHNOLOGY CENTER F'IPIAL ENVIRONl9ENTAL IP9PACT REPORT CHAPTER 7: MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM