Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 6.A 03/03/200300 f 2003 F . , CITY OF I'ETALUMA, CAL- IF:QRNIA MEMORANDUM Communt Develo ty _ _ pmeizt,Department, 11 English Street „Petaluma, .CA 94952 (707) 7784314 Fax (7077) 778 -4498 E -mail. mmoore@dpetaluma.ca.us DATE: March 3, 2003 TO: Michael B'errnan , City Manager FROM: Mike Moore, Community Dovelppment Direct Jaym Allsep, Contract Plannf° SUBJECT: Redwood Technology Center BACKGROUND: Proposed Project The Redwood Technology CenterprgJ t, proposed by Basin Street Properties, would entail the development of an office/research and development 'center located. on a 14.4 -acre ,site near-the corner of 'Old Redwood. 'Highway and North McDowell Boulevard. The proposal includes 262,500 gross square feet of professional office /research :and development space 'contained -in four and B, and a 7,500 square' foot- freestanding restaurant building pad S on Parcel a A. o A, reduced, set of plans, which includes a site plan, architectural, preliminary grading and landscape plans, is attached. The project would require, approval of a General Plan Amendment and aRezonng of property. The General Plan Amendment would change the land use designation from the current "Special. Commercial” designation to a "Special Industrial /Off ce'Park" designation, which is intended for well- designed, master - planned, campus -type developments for employers who will contribute significantly to the City's objective of increasing employment densities. The proposed rezoning would replace ,the existing Highway Commercial (CH) District designation on Parcel A, and Light Industrial (ML) District designation on Parcel B with a Planned Unit District (PUD) designation. Planning' Canmissi'on Re�iew andAecommendat on The. Planning Commission conducted "three public hearings' on the project at. meetings held on January 8, January 22, and May 14,. 2002. The first two meetings held in January focused on: the Draft EIR, and the last meeting in May focused on the Final EIR and project merits. The minutes of the January 8' January 22, and May 14, 2002 Planning Commission: meeting are attached to this report and ate included in Volume II of the Final EIR., On, May 14 2002 the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council certify the Final Environmental ,Impact, eport, adopt 'the General Plan Amendment;, and approve the request to rezone the property. to TUD, including the adoption of. �a Planned Unit Development Plan for the Redwood 'Technology Center project. As part of their recommendations on the project, the Planning Commission' requested the following: 0, 0 ''N ■ The site plan generated for the "Pedestrian- Friendly" alternative identified in the Final EIR (Alternative D) should be seriously•considered, along with any resulting hydrology impacts; • On -site daycare shall be a requirement of the project; • A condition of. approval that°water going into the "Petaluma River i's filtered, and , that: it be monitored; • The maximum building height should be limited to 55 feet to be consistent. with buildings nearby; ■ Eliminate jail facilities as one of the conditionally permitted uses identified in the proposed PUD :regulations; and Funding ,sources and bonding• capabilities to widen the Old Redwood'.Highway overpass need to be considered. City Council Action The City Council considered the Final EIR And project on June lb,, 2002. After brief presentations by both staff and the applicant's project team, and, after receiving.pub the City Council voted to, continue the item. The project was scheduled to go. back before the Council on September 9, 2062. However, due 'to-other pressing, matters before the Council, the project was taken off the agenda. and postponed at the request of the applicant. The City Council must first act on certification of the Final EIR. The Final EIR musi'be certified before the project can be approved. Certification of the Final EIR. does riot require that. the City Council approve the project as proposed. The City Council may ; approve the project *as proposed, with conditions and/or revisions. Alternatively, the Council can choose`fo deny the project and/or approve ,a proj ect alternative that; was analyzed in the Final EIR. Given the length:oftime since this project was last reviewed by thei Council, and given that there are riow three new council members information previously transmitted, to the' City Council is once again being ,provided. The following is a list: of documents. attached to this report and a brief description of some of. the important information contained in these documents: ■ Staff Report prepared for the .dune 10, 2002 City° Council , meeting (Attachment 1). This report contains an overview of the proposed project, an analysis of the projects. conformance. with General Plan and Zoning policies and an: overview of the topics discussed iii the Final, ETR. Memorandum. dated July. 12, 2002 Response to Issues Raised at June 10, 2002 City Council Meeting (Attachment 2). In response to a number of questions raised 'at the June 10, 2002 meeting; staff prodded, written _responses to those questions in a memorandum dated July 12, 2002:: Draft; Resolutions Certifying t>ie Final Environmental,Irnpact Report and adopting findings a statement of overriding considerations` (Attachments 3 and 4);, The Petaluma; Environmental Review Guidelines and the California '- oDmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines require,'that the decision - making body balance the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of `a proposed project against its :unavoidable ' i . 0 • 0 2. t 3 environmental risks when determining; whether to approve a project: If these benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmentat effects, the adverse effects may be considered" "acceptable." The :decision= making body must state in writing the specific reasons . to support its action based on the 'Final EIR, and/or other 'information in the • record. This; "Statement of Overriding Considerations" must be.`supported by substantial evidence in the record:. For the Redwood Technology Center project there is, one significant impact that cannot be mitigated to ales- than- significant level. Hence; the following impact is considered sign'ifi'cant and unavoidable: The Old Redwood Highway overpass across Highway 101 would deteriorate to unacceptable service levels (Impact Cir -3), This impact would occur with or 'without the project because of capacity constraints on the existing two -lane freeway, overpass. The Final EIR identifies' Mitigation Measure CIR -3, which provides for a, fair -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 $ Million, is not secured. In, response to questions raised at the June - 10; 2002, City Council meeting staff has prepared a .draft resolution which includes language for a Statement of Overriding Considerations (shown in, italics). In addition, the xeso'lution includes draft findings, which address project alternatives that were. considered but were dismissed. from further consideration. The City Council :may ,adopt any or ;all of 'the findings as drafted, or may direct staff to modify the statement and, findings as specified by the City Council. The findings must be "sup ported'by substantial evidence in the record. If significant revisions to the resolution are required, staff recommends that the 'City Council give direction to staff as to how the statement and findings should b& modified. Staff will then modify the resolution per the City Council" s direction, and the resolution will then return to the City Council. at the next available meeting for adoption. Resolutions and Ordinance -approving the GPA :and' Rezoning and Development Plan (Attachments 5; 6 and 7). These resolutions and ordinance contain the findings necessary to approve the proposed general plan ;amendment, rezoning and Unit Development Plan for the project. Draft Conditions (Attachment 8). The proposed draft conditions are based on comments recommendations and requirements of :other City departments arid. oilier agencies and include the - niifigation measures identified in the Final .EIR, amended as necessary to :serve, as a condition of project approval. Note: if approved by the City„ Council, the prgj ect would be required °to receive final approval for site plan, architectural and landscape plans by the Site Plan &,Architectural Review Committee'(SPARC). The Fin al Environmental Impact Report, Volumes I and II, dated May 3, 2002, were previousiv provided to the Council, and are now being provided to the new councilmembers. If any councilmember needs another copy of the Final EIR or would like a full -size set of project plans; please contact: Anne Windsor at (707) 778=4316 or Jayni. Alisep at (415) 789 - 0736 Community Development Department staff and the, EIR traffic and hydrology consultants will attend the meeting to respond to questions. Given the length of time that has passed since this project was first reviewed' by the Council, please .feel free to contact staff in advance of 'the March 3rd meeting with any questions so that we may be prepared to ,respond at or'before the meeting. • I Attachments: 1. City Council Staff Report prepared for June 10, .2002 meeting (without attachments• except for Planning Commission. Minutes). I 2 Meeting ated. Jul Y `12 , 2002 - Res p onses to Issues raised' at June 1`0, 20 Council 02 City 3. Resolution Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report: 4. Resolution '(revised) adopting a Statement of 'Overriding Considerations and Approving the Mitigation `Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). j 5. Resolution Amending the 'General Plan hand.Use Map from "Special Commercial" to "Special Industrial/Office Park".- 6. Introduction of Ordinance Rezoning Property from,.Highway.Comrnercial (CH) on Parcel A and Light Industrial (ML) on Parcel B to Planned'Unit District'(P.UD), 7.. Resolution Adopting 'a Unit Development Plan for Redwood' Technology Center 8. Draft Conditions of Approval' (including mitigation measures adopted' as , conditions). '9. Plans (City Council only) o: George White, Assistant Community Developmerif'Director Jayn*.AIsep, Project Planner, i Vin Smith, Basin Street Properties V. S: \CC -City Counci]\Memo §\ Redwood_ Tech_ 030303\redwoodtechCCmemo030303 .doc t, 1 • • F F L 4 1 ATTACHMENT: 1 CITY OFTETALUMA; CALIFORNIA AGENDA BILL Agenda Title Meeting Date: June 10, 2002 Discussion and Possible. Action Regarding; a Recommendation from. the Planning Commission to Approve; A. 'Resolution Certifying the "Final Environmental Impact :Report. B. Resolution .Adopting a Statement of Considerations and' Approving the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting:Program. (1VIl\!IRP)., C. Resolution Amending the General.Plan Land. Use Map from "Special Coiniriercial" to "Special Industrial/Office, Park ". D. Introduction of Ordinance Rezoning, Property from.Highway Commercial (CH) on:P,arcel A acid Light Industrial- (ML) on Parcel B to Planned Unit District'(PUD)., .E. Resolution Adopting a Uri't Development Plan for Redwood Technology Center Project is proposed for a 14.4 acre: site at the Southwest Corner of Old Redwood Highway and North McDowell Boulevard : APN 007 -- 411 -007; 9., 1 -1, 1.8, 19 (Moore /Allsep) IL apartment Direetor ,Contact Pe s Phone Number 778 -4301 Community Michael C. e, ay,n1 All ep, Development Project Planet . Cost of Proposal N/A Account Number N/A Amount Budgeted N/A Name of )Fund: N/A Attachments to Agenda Packet Item 1. Location Map 2. Minutes Excerpt of May 14, 2002 Planning Commission `1VIeeting, 3. .Memorandum from Hydrologist Betty Andrews, PWA dated May 30 4. Staff Report frorn the May 14, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting (without Attachments) T 5. Staff Report from ahe January 5,, 2002 Planning Commission- Meeting (report dated December 11, 2001 — without Attachments) 6. Proposed,Redwood Technology Center Development Standards 7: Public: Notice 8. Draft Conditions of Approval 9. Draft Resolution Certifying: the' Final. Environmental Impact Report 1.0. Draft Resolution Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations and Approving the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting,Program,(MMRP) 11. Draft Resolution A nending:the General Plan land use designation from "Special Commercial" to "_Special Indu-str. iaUOfRc:e Park" 11 Draft Ordinance to Rezone the,subject.property from.Highway'Conimercial (Parcel A) and Light Industrial (Parcel B) to Planned Unit.District (PUD) 13. Draft Resolution adopting Umt.IDeuelopmeni Plan for the Redwood Technology Center Summary Statement Consideration of recommendations from the Plannmg'Commission `and:approva'1 of resolutions to certify the Final Environmental. Impact Report (EIR), adopt a General Plan Amendment from "Special Commercial" to "Special Industrial /Office Park ', I and adopt, an Ordinance to Rezone the subject parcel from Highway Coimercial (Parcel .A), and Light;�Industrial (Parcel -B)j District -to Planned Unit Dlstrict.( which W ill. allow�the development of an office /research and development center located.on a 1.4.4-acre site near the corner, of Old Redwood Highway and North McDowell Boulevard, .APN 007 - 41.1 =7, 9, 11, IS: and 19. 'The proposal includes a total of 262;500 gross square feet of professional office /research. and• development space contained 'in four, buildings to be located on 'Parcels A and B, and a 7,500 square foot freestand'ing.restaurant building pad on Parcel A. Council Priority THIS AGENDA ITEM IS CONSIDERED TO BE P ART OF, OR NECESSARY `To; ONE OR MORE' OF THE 2001 PRIORITIES EsTABLISHED'BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON J,ULY.Z1;, 2001: Pnority(s): Recommended City Council Action /Suggested Motion Cbrisideration of kecommendations from the Planning`,Commission and, approval. of resolutions' to .certify the'F-inal Environmental Impact' Report (EIR), adopt a General Plan, Amendment from "Special Commercial "„ to "Special Industrial /Office Park " ; and adopt an Ordinance io Rezone the mibject parcel from Highway Commercial (Parcel A) and Light` Industrial (Parcel B), :District to Planned Unit ;Distri ct_ (PUD) which will allow the development. of an office/researchl and development center located on a 14.4- acre, site, near .the corner of Old Redwood" Highway'and No rth McDowell Boulevard; APN 007­411-7,9,11, 18' and, 19., The proposal includes a total of 262,500 gross square feet of professional office /research and' develop'ineiif space contained in four buildings to be; located on Parcels A and B, acid a 7;5:00 square foot •freestanding 'restaurant building pad' on. Parcel,A. R eviewed by Mnanfce� Director : Reviewed'by ":City Attorney Date: A rov d; v 'City lawmen Dater te: Today's ,Date Revision .# and Date'Redised: le . ode: J 1.{,-�w�;. . • CITY OF PETALUMA . C ALIFORNIA June, 10, 2002' AGENDA SPORT FOR T E`REDWOOD TECHNOLOGY CENTER. GENERAL,.PLAN.AMENDAINT, RE ZONINGAND NIT .. U- DEVELOPMENT PLAN: 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed project entails the, development: of an, office /research and development :center located :on a 14..4 -acre site near the corner of Old Redwood .Highway - and North McDowell Boulevard. The proposal includes 262;500 ,gross square feet of professional office /research and development space contained in ;four buildings. to 'be located on. Parcels .A and B and a 7;500 square foot freestanding restaurant 'building ,pad on, Parcel A. On May 14 2002; the Planning C6mmiss'ion recommended, that the. Cray Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report, 10, . Adopt General Plan Amendment; and approve the request to rezone the' property to PUD, including the' adoption of. a Planned Unit Development Plan. 2. BACKGROUND. Project-Description Basin Street Properties proposes. to construct an 'office/ research and development center that would provide a total of '262,500 gross: square feet of professional office /research and development space contained in'-four buildings to 'be located on two parcels located near the corner of Old. Redwood Highway and North McDowell Boulevard. A 7,500 square foot free restaurant building ,pad' is also proposed. Primary access to the project' would. he from a westerly extension of 'Redwood Way at: North McDowell Boulevard. This road would be constructed on the.' adj acent parcel (Parcel C) owned- - _. ,by California ,Drive -ln 'Theatres. The applicant has entered into an access° agreement with the owners of Parcel, C to provide .for, this primary access. In addition a driveway, is proposed near the restaurant pad on Parcel._A, and Stubb Road serves as a secondary access for Parcel B. Development - proposed for each ,parcel is described below: Pareel'A Development on this parcel would consist of two office buildings and a 7,500 - square .foot restaurant; Building Al _ would contain 58,000 gross square feet and Building A2 would • contain 5'4;500 gross square feet of office%12 &D space. Each of :the office: buildings would be 2 threel stories and have a maximum `height of 50 feet. The office buildings would be; constructed on p p y p plaza. The. restaurant the west side of the parcel separated from each other b a landsca ed would be situated at the northeastern corner of the property; at the corner formed by the intersection of North McDowell and Old Redwood.;Highway., Automobile: parking would be provided south:. and east of each office, building witlimost.of the, parking to the east and ,smaller parking,areas to the south. A total of 432',spaces would be provided on Parcel A, of which 2,0 are proposed' to '.be shared spaces :between the restaurar t.and .the office/R &D uses. Parcel,B ­ Development on this •parcel: would consist of adjacent office, buildings: Building gross square feet and _Buildin B2 would contain B l would contain 90000 q g in 50 gross. square. feet of off.ce%R &D space. Each ofthe buildings would be three storiesandswould have a similar curvilinear design, separated'by a lndscaped,plaza/meefirig area. The'rnaxirnum building; height' would be, 50 feet. The two buildings would be sited on the'northwest corner H of the parcel, near the northbound Highway Ml off- raftip..A tOtal.of 52_$ spaces is proposed on Parcel B, of which 39.6 spaces would be contained .in .a parking sfructure 'locat'ed to the east of the buildings. The parkin& structure, would have one :at grade level and one elevated level`: Building materials are proposed to be a combination, .of 'lightly reflective vision glass with spandrelite panels set in painted,aluminum'window mullions and textured concrete panels. The Redwood Technology Ceriterplan -includes _several, design amenities; including' 1'aridscapiig, outdoor meeting areas, pedestrian paths acid a water feature between the,two buildings onParcel act .of the noise :from ad acent Hi wa 101: Pro osed B ;designed to minimize the. imp j _ gh y p, development standards including permitted 'uses, :conditional uses, maximum, building leghf,, -minimum building °setbacks. and:ppr'king requirements are specified in Attachment 6)'. " An ,existing ditch that follows the el" aturbi of the Highway 101 off -ramp would 'be "improved as part of the proposal to mitigate for wetlands loss. The ditch would lead to ;a larger weflnd are south of ;the parking rot. The RedwoodT�e�c Develop t :Plan proposes an alternate, luniversal, stall size ;of' 8.5'X 18 feet (1 STALL ) to be used throughout. the development, The 'project ;sponsor-' has -submitted, applicafions requesting°, approval - � of _a General,; Plan Amendment and a. Rezoning of property. The General Plan, Amendment; would change' the land use: designation from the current Sec " gn " p ial C'ommercial" designation to a "Special Industrial /Offiee Park designation, which is intended'fot well - designed, master. - planned, campus - type developments `for, employers who will contribute significantly to the City's objective of increasing employm" ent' densities. designation s s Parcel A and Light e Li h Industrial ML) n Distri I t C e desi ato on (Cell) District g _ (, gn Parcel B with a Plarmed, Unit District' (PUU) designation: The Planned Unit District is designed to allow inclusion within its, boundaries, a mixture of uses; or unusual, density, building intensity; or design -characteristics that would not normally be perrnitted­in a. single use! district. Development in this zone is allowable only after the approval' by the. City Council of a complete UnitDevelopment Plan: '3` I -I J, showing the internal, design of the'Distfict, the interrelatioriship of uses,, and their relation I ` the 0 surrounding area.: Both parcels are "within 'the F"C, Floo ai - Combining overlay Oistrict. The provisions of *' i dpl i n is- Article 16, Floodway and Flood Plain Districts, ' wi th specific building gnating wi , criteria, will apply. Following City Council 4p proval the proposal will be required to receive final zpprovad for site plan, architectural and landscape; plans by the Site Plan & Architectural Review Committee, (SPARC). Site History: ,In 1994, the City Council certified a Final Environmental Im pact Report (EIR) for the Pacific, ....Theatres Expansion (on Site C) and:-pursuod the ptbparation-of f6r the 30 acres of land, known as the Redwood Crossroads site, -made u p: of Parcels A,, B :and C,. under separate: ownership In ON., a ept known as the Redwood Shopping Cdnterwds PYOJ in proposed on, the -, 0.2-,acre parcel at the intersection. of McDowell Boulevard North and Old Redwood y h(pprd q a , due to pp cn! offi ce�s�uppl store 'identified as an anchor tenant. When, it becam6 tail aarent thath z Staples , number of'jssues an&cancerns,, the two other property , Parcels B. and owners (6 - were not interested in -ffov]*L'n'g - forward With a master plan for I I he l arger argpr 30-acrp the City Council made thedetermination that the sit e need not."be, maste b r plann6d, Instead,, the scope of the EIR g re for the Redwood Crossroads :Shopping, Center Was expanded to °include a; policy _. analysis ;sectionand an a9ses9thent of potential land use d1te matives for the larger '30-acre In 1999',_ G&W Manage fit (how Basij - Stree .gemb n t Propgrtie submitted plans Tbi.the Corporate Campus project for -8.2-acre parcel; now -referred to.'as, ParUel'B. 'This project proposed a 150",660 , sq. fLprofession4l office/research and,devdlo' - 1 on ent complex ? At arceI`B4 thatAime; .ph I -_ , .- ­ 1. 1-1- 1 ­ I the applicants, for both, t ime; Crossroads retail` cen and the Corporate Campus agreed to. expand' the scope of the original, EIR, to include, analysis of both pr6j'eds'. Jh addition,, it was decided that, a , or the "theater ,property e� development scenario y P arcel Q would also be, addressed ill the EIR, analysis., The,scope of the EM was later modified - ified. to reflect the pro ject TOJ currently'prop6s6d, Parcels Aand B, Redwood Technolo Center. General:-P.Ian Consistenc The pr9pQsa1, includes z_xeiquest for a General Plan. Amendment that would change the current "Special �Cbmnfercial` des4tnation - to a, "Special. Industrial /Office I . Park-" designation., Accordin ' gn- . : to the General, Plan, this -di2signdtibh is 'intended for well - designed; master-plamied in �ca, pus-ty y pe deVel'opmerits:for employers, who will contribute significantly to :the City's object of -increas ing employme Sil � T �o ,pt, den � ties : proposes of an cl.. office /research and development campus With square feet . ,of office/R &D i space could' provide': as man a 1,000 Aill"time jobs,, and would be consistent with the y _s objectives of the S.peciaf4tidustrial/Office Park desig­natibn. 0 9 General Plan policies related. health and saf6ty, water quality,, noise 'dild uiiliiy ,,service are implemented through the project entitlement and building permit re . ew I process , vi proce9s.., General Plan Ele coritaii policies - that, apply spetificalty -to, r site e the's and/or ' quire more, detailed the I- - analysis , Wdetermine , compliance are addressed below: Community Character Chapter ;Policy —Low file, horii6ntal,dev y p ro f vlqpmenfshaltbe encouraged Loe atim and!:&1teria to - al l ow fortd1ler bifildings"Will be studied. Policy 6 — Well designed development that will be 'harmonious with .their Getting andl6r en hance theciV" S image shallheencouraged: Policy 10 —, The , City shall encourage public and private Ian dscap ing,'along, or in, alt major streets, Policy 14.2 — New develqPMdht,,Yha1l` Midapedestrian and ,bicycle circulation wi thin and in I through; the •site -,t6 connect existi and /or planned City=Wide: pedestrian and/or bic ycle networks. i Policy `2-01--! The ,clu§tering-. pr&esshall'be,endouraged p Additional,,Vr� doih"Mercia I Vs . hall,be discourogie�a, al'str' including eets­ Ld ke . Bo East _ 4ekg Washington, Petaluma Boulevard; -afid Old 'Redwood Highway. The•prbposed proj ectinco design features that are consistent , with and achieveAhe' intent of most of 'the policies sd4ofthin, this Ch apter. The buildings prqposdd,o p A and B would below profile, protecting surrounding views g view , ofthe hill§, and the project site would be well with in th p landscaped v e� ar v ` ­ - ki ing areas and in front of the hu'ildings� and I rn d along the - North McDowell, frontage. The," ect would also preserve some wetlands pr on-site within, a weiland inifigation area Which addresses ihe Gefidtal, P�lan, objectiv bj 6 IV b, to preserve mea and usable urban open space in development.! Although "plans for the project do mot demonstrate compliance the Bicycle cle Plan, mitigation measures id6iitifie& in ' the 'Traffic - and Circulation ulation,section of the EIR would require _and empl pedestrian zonnections and. f ti6S" as Well -as bicycle lockers ers ac i k �racks. d - - ­1 - __ - : . I - ­ and d ' - '_ ' o - empl 0 ye,e howqTs - �J an n accordance with, recominendations - contained in A ed :;: A f 'the I Bicycle, Plan. , As conditioned,, the pfoj ect I w ould , conform .to the policies of this Chapter. Land Use and Growth Management Chapter The goals and policies, of the 'Land. Use and 'Growth Management Chapter reflect the city',s overall philosophy on publi pro ic andp .private development. The is ,located within, the Urban Limit Line, and . is consistent with ,Cit , City - policy to, limit - ,growth y Q within - w - these boun _daries. Similar the pfoi.ebt:is consistent with I � - ty, A6e� Land. Use that support- and ;reinforce ;city centered development., The project' i . s, consistent with the .intent of the Special Industridl/Offi - Park designation, which. its to. support well- designed, m4stery pe dev dopmerits for loyers iannedcampus-ty e - i emp , w, 11 contribute 5 significantly to obi ective.of increasing . employment densities'. In addition, the • Redwood Te6hhigh- lo y Center wo 0 uldcofitributet the tax base of, the- City by providing an op portunity,for Wage resiQAts to work in the City. Furthermore,. the Project does not precludethe development - of the adj abentpropetty, -ret '* ,PatbeIC',:as�ata-x; ai I center. Local Eeononiv Chapter Policy 0 o Cit acti number f persons who both ,y shall ach ly attempf to increase the nu work and in Petaluma. Policy 7' - The Cit''ihdll, new s industrie that will employ Petalumans, y industries - ­ ­ . - employ The project could provid as many as 1,000 full jobs; many of wlii6h would be higher Paying position's for Which ketalurn-ans are currently out- commuting to , communities in the Bay Area. 'Therefore, in gerjerdl,, the Redwood Technology. Center 'would' 'help lo achieve; the� Local Economy Chapter's oa19, objectives and policies related, to creating sources of local employment; attracting Jo-offi . ce projects to ffi e and g ., 4j x - -_ - , , y .increasing the number of who - live . and work. Petaluma, Transportation Chapter at "C" Policy 1 On! streets where Level of Service s, currently or bette LOS' Y : -, I- - 1 1. ­ ) i ,- n shalt not deteriorate ,below "C". Where 1985 LOS was: '.D,:"'or "E", LOS' shall not deteriorate to the next lower level. , Policy 2s TYaff c improweinents shall be made to. ,arterials and collectors to provide LOS C or befter, where feasible:, Folipy, 9: Land use decisio take into consideration I a pqte n ti I traffic impacts. P fic 10: New develODMOnt shall'be required to p d y- pro-rata shar of needed traffic 0 Y e wrovements. y 31::, Land use decis ions shall'be based on Potential traffic traffic impacts. i Traffic improvements identifiO m the Tinal,EIR would maffitaift a Level. of S i ervice (LOS) 1) On the roadways ' I .1 n the ar ea. However mitigation, measures require only 4 pro- rata contribution for these 'road i s, many of which, are not 'included 'in. the improvement City's;, Capital lnipt6vernent Plan Therefore, complete i funding 'for , the needed, improvements is not guarant ar . - e.ed, and the City Council fm& that the mitigation measures cannot 'be feasibly 'lemenbod and further finds: that IMP impacts are considered acceptable because ,overriding considerations indicate that the project's', b.ehefits outweigh the impacts in question, In addition, the, project would result in one traffic impact (CIRr3 that is de'eined,significant unavoidable. Traffic on 'the Old Redwood Highway overpass across I HighWdy 101 Would. deteniorate'to uftacceptableservibd levels., Thi§ impact would result, whether or not the prod j ect - woul'd occur,, and is discussed further Below.; Similar to the policies containedin. the Coffimunity-Character Chapter, Prograni 13..1 call ,for major employment and commercial 'centers to incorporate into their d'evelopm en p l ans,, lang,, to the extent: possible. pedestrian, transit fatid'bicycfe access and related facilities such as bicycle racks/lockers, street li ght ng and furniture,, and transit ,stops. -.i The project site is 'currently served by two local bus -routes and 'is accessible by local bicycle routes. MitigatioWmeasure identif.fed in, the Traffic and ,Circulation section of the EIR, would require improved pedestrian connections and facilities,-as wellias bicycle lockers, and racks, and employees showers in accordance with recommendations; - contained a in Appendix A the Bicycle Plan. In addition, , Appendix - - -- --Qn, & rneasurei*8 recommended that, Would require that the proposed project include; a statement of intent that the developers will- encourage the! of vehicle it pzeductfori progr Community Health and Safety Chapter P000; 7 The Eit shall regy.late--ldnd uses in flood d-prone areas 'and shou allow develo i n those areas only prc *4b,op ?pr ate Mitigation. Policy I h . .0: T C ity shall continue to require, fees; standards, and other measure to mii associated. with new development Policy 1 2• The City shall requite, dynamic- ground-motion analyses and , responsive , structural design for all new higk-Qccup 04 structures and cy w hose continued � W functioning d' in the, event of �a: disaster is critical;: and to h ave plan che . cki for these buildings performed'by, a licenjed.structuralen ineer. The proposed project, would he desigried -and constructed .. to minimize hazards from floodinvto the fallest 'extent possible; as balled for in the -Hazard section of the Community Health and Safety- Chapter. Under. Seismic Safety Policy 12, the City, requires ;dynarnic, -grouhd m6fion analysis at the time of building pernift/Olan check review, -Furthermore, noise - °and,air quality -impacts generated by the project. would not impede the 'General Plan obj ectives to minimize: noise` - created by ftifur development and maintain and im prove Mdftima"s pair qualit . ,General Plan AmendmehfReques In orderforthe3 City Qouncil, to ap prove a General .PanA lmerdinent the .fol Ji . lowin ndings must - be made:t •, The . proposed General Tla:ii Amendment; is consistent and compatible with the rest of the General Plan and any implementation programs; that maybe affiectM. Potential irnDacts of the. prop Pose d amendni etit, have been assessed and, have been determined not —to be detrimental to the public health, safety;, or welfare. 7, � 1 • The proposed amendment' has been processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the "California. Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A discussion of the project "s conformance with City general plan policies and the findings to approve a General Plan Amendment is contained in the January 8, 2002, Planning Commission staff report (dated December ;11, 2001). Rezoning The proposal involves a rezoning that would replace the existing Highway Commercial (CH) District designation on Parcel A, and. Light Industrial (ML) District ,designation on Parcel B with a Planned ' Unit District (PUD) designation. The Planned Unit District is designed to allow inclusion within its .boundaries a of uses, or unusual density, building intensity, or design characteristics that would not, normally be permitted in a single use district.. Development in this zone is allowable only afterthe approval by City Council. of a complete Unit.Development Plan showing the „internal design of the District, the interrelationships of uses; and their relation to the surrounding area. In addition, the following specific findings must be made: ® That any`P.U.D. District is` proposed on property which has suitable relationship to one or more thoroughfares, and that said thoroughfares are adequate to carry any additional traffic generated by development,. • • That the plan for the'proposed development presents a unified,and.organized arrangement of buildings and service facilities which are appropriate in relation to adjacent or nearby properties, and that provisions for adequate landscaping and/or screening are included to ensure compatibility. • That the natural and scenic qualities of the site are protected, with adequate available public and private spaces designated on the Unit Development Plan. ® The development of the subject property project in the manner proposed by the applicant, and as conditioned, will ,not be detrimental to the :public; welfare, will be in the best interests of the City, and will be in keeping with the general intent and spirit of the zoning regulations of the City of Petaluma, and with the Petaluma General Plan. A discussion of the project's conformance with City zoning policies is contained in the January 8, 2002 staff report (dated December 11, 2001). Preliminary SPARC Review The previous retail center proposed for Site A and the Corporate Campus proposed for Site B. were p resented to SPARC for preliminary review on August 12, 1999. The current proposal has not been reviewed by SPARC. Conditions of approval require SPARC review and approval prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit. • E. Planning Commission, Review The Planning. Commission conducted three public hearings on the project at meetings held on January 8, January , ,22, and May 14, 2002:, The first two meetings held in January focused on the Draft EIR, and the last meeting in May,,focused on the Final EIR and project merits. Attached are. the minutes and staff reports for these Planning Commission meetings. The minutes of the January ,8 and .January 22, 2402, Planning Commission .meetings are included in Volume II of the Final EIR. During the three public hearings, the Planning. Commission heard testimony, -from- several members of -the public whose concerns, focused the ;project's possible iinpacts on traffic and flooding in the area. At the' May 14th. Planning Commission meeting, a member of the - public, Mr. John Cheney, questioned whether an existing.84 -inch pipe near Corona Road,was _factored into the hydrology analysis. At that time; Betty Andrews With Phillip Williams & Associates, EIR hydrology consultants; could not confirm or deny the presence of the pipe in question. Staff - suggested that as part; of their ,recommendation, the Planning Commission could request that further field investigation and' hydrology rnod`eling, if necessary, be required prior to the Council's consideration `of the project. After receiving the staff report discussion, and :hearing all public testimony, the Commission voted to: 1) Recommend that the City Council, certify the Final Environmental Impact Report, with the ,stipulation that a field check be conducted to confirm the presence of the 84 7inch culvert in • question,, and•'if necessary, re -run the hydrology model to, determine whether' any changes to the, conclusions of the EIR hydrology analysis would result. 2) Adopt the, General. Plan Amendment to a "Special Industrial /Office Park" designation; and 3) Approve the Rezoning to "Planned Unit Development (PUD), including the adoption of a Planned UnitDevelopment Plan. As part of their recommendations on the project,. the Planning Commission requested the following: ■ The site plan generated for the . "Pedestrian Friendly" alternative identified in the Finial EIR (Alternative D) `should. be seriously considered, ;along with any resulting hydrology impacts; On -site daycare shall be a requirement of the project; ■ A; condition of approval that water going into the Petaluma River is filtered and that it 'be monitored; " ■ The maximum building height should be limited to 55 feet to be consistent with buildings nearby; W ® Eliminate jail facilities as one of -the conditionally permitted_ uses identified in the • proposed PUD regulations; and ® Funding sources and bonding capabilities to widen the Old Redwood Highway overpass need to be considered. As recommended by the staff and the Planning Commission, the EIR hydrology consultant, PWA, conducted additional fieldwork and was able to confirm the presence of the 84 -inch culvert'discussed above. PWA has revised the hydrodynamic model used in the Final EIR to evaluate the hydraulic ; and hydrologic impacts of the proposed Redwood Technology Center so that it includes the previously omitted "84- inch" culvert at the end ofthe Holm Road ditch. The effect of the addition of -the culvert on both the existing conditions and "the with - project model results in a 100 -year event is extremely modest. As previously concluded in the Final EIR, this amount is within the range of the model's computational uncertainty and can be considered in all cases to quantitatively represent no impact. A memorandum from PWA that reports the findings of the additionaYfield and modeling work is included as Attachment 3. 3. F INAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT On October 24, 2001, a Draft' 'E'IR for the Redwood Technology. Center project was released for the required 45 -day public review" and comment period. The public comment period was extended to include comments received prior to "and during the Planning, Commission hearing • h eld on January 8 2002. At the following. meeting held on January 22, 2002, the Planning Commission provided their comments on the Draft EIR and requested that they have an opportunity to review the Final EIR. The City's EIR consultant, Design, Community & Environment. (DC &E), has prepared the Final EIR, which provides responses to comments received on the Draft EIR, and clarifies any errors, omissions, or misinterpretation of discussion of findings in the Draft EIR. th Draft . EIR is containe � environm Vol al evaluation, ins the same components included in (p descri p ion_ alternatives to the proposed project), with corrections clarifications and minor .text edits' based on :comments received on the Draft EIR: Hi1ghh1ghted text represents" language that has been added to the EIR documents text with steers has been deleted from the EIR. " Volume I also contains a Mitigation Monitoring Pro'grAm, The City must mom orir g,mitigati n measures that e r o made conditions of pro'ect,a pfor reporting or -adopted P ,J approval. Volume . 11 of the Final E IR contains reproductions of letters received from the public and government agencies on, the Draft EIR. Following each letter are .responses to comments contained .in the letter-, The responses are keyed to the comment'by sharing the same numeric code (shown in the margin of the letters). The written comments are followed by public hearing comments and responses, Volume II also contains the Appendices, supplemental information related to traffic and' eirculation, groundwater and information related specifically to Parcel C • (Theater parcel). 10 The Final EIR concludes that implementation of the Redwood Technology Center project, including the development scenario for .Parcel C, has the potential to generate environmental impacts in the following areas: • Public Policy • Traffic and Circulation • Infrastructure and Community Services • Visual and Urban Design • Biology • Hydrology; Drainage and Water Quality • Noise • Air Although impacts could be significant ;. all but one of the identified impacts are avoidable and would: be reduced to a less- than- significant level if the mitigation. measures recommended in this report. are implemented. Unavoidable Significant.Impact The Final EIR concludes.,;that one 9 1 gnificant and*. unavoidable traffic impact (Impact C r=3). Whether . or not the project would occur traffic on the Old Redwood Highway overpass across Highway 1.01 would deteriorate to unacceptable service levels. Given that the recommended mitigation measure.to widen to overpass could not occur'prior to completion ofthe ;project, :the impact could. not be .mitigated to . a less - than_ significant level. Therefore, this impact is considered significant and unavoidable. The Petaluma Environmental Review Guidelines and the CEQA guidelines require that the decision =makmg� agency to 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, record. The statement of overriding considerations must be supported by substantial evidence in the record. Parcel C - Theater Parcel As noted previously, after the City Council made the determination that the parcels;. comprising the 30 acres, known as Redwood ;Crossroads; need not be master- planned, the ;scope of the ,EIR was amended to :include a future development scenario for the 16:2 -acre theater property (Parcel C) in order to assess the environmental impacts of development of the entire 30 acres (Parcels,A, B and C). The Parcel `C development scenario that is analyzed in the .Fina1.EIR is. ;based on an application filed by .Robertson 'Properties Group .in December 200.1. This application ,proposes . the demolition of the existing theater bulding..and development of :a retail center that would 'include a free- standing discount store -with garden center, over 34,000 square .feet of additional retail space and two'restaurant, 'ads,, one which is proposed to be. a fast -food restaurant with a drive- through. It is "important to note that although .Parcel C development was included in the EIR analysis, the .Robertson Properties Group application for Parcel C is not before the City 1.1 Council at this time. This 'application which requires an amendment to an approved PCD, will be subject to a separate environmental review, and public hearing process .before the Planning • Commission and the City Council. 4. ALTERNATIVES a. The City Council may accept the recommendation from the Planning Commission and approve the requested General Plan Amendment, Rezoning and Planned Community Regulations. b. The City Council may approve the proposed project with other. modifications. c. The City Council may deny the request for the General Plan Amendment and/or the request for the Rezoning. 5. FINANCIAL IMPACTS This is a private development project subject to. applicable City Special development. Fees and standard processing .permit fees. A contract planner, working on a full cost recovery basis, has processed the application: 6. CONCLUSION The Planning Commission recom'm6nded certification of the Final EIR, and also found that the proposed General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and Unit Development. Plan would be consistent with the General Plan and , the Zoning Ordinance, and recommended that the City Council approve the project., 7. RECOMMENDATION The Planning. Commission and staff .recommend that the City Council: 1.) adopt a resolution certifying the. Final Environmental .Impact Report; 2) adopt a resolution adopting a Statement of Overriding -Considerations .and' ;approving the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (1V MRP) , 3) adopt a resolution to amend General Plan land use designation. from "Special Commercial" to "Special Industrial/Office Park "; and 4) introducel an ordinance to ;rezone the property from Highway Commercial (Parcel A) and. Light Industrial (Parcel B) to Planned Unit District (PUD) including the' approval of a Unit Development Plan for the Redwood `Technology Center. • 12 Planning Commission'Minutes = January 8, 2002 • City of Petaluma, California City Council Chambers City Hall, 11 English Street Petaluma, CA'94952 Telephone 707/778 -4301 /`Fax 707/778 -4498 E -Mail planniazAci:petaluma.ca.us Web Page htti)://www.ci.lietaluma.ca.us Planning o mission' Minutes EXCERPT January 8, 2002, 7:00' P.M. Commissioners: Present: Barrett, Darg e, Glass*, Monteschio, O'Brien, von Raesfeld, Vouri (Absent for Agenda1tem. I) 0 * Chair NEW BUSINESS, PUBLIC HEARING 11. REDWOOD TECHNOLOGY CENTER, by Basin Street Properties, corner of Old Redwood Highway and North McDowell Boulevard, AP NOS: -007- 411 -7, 9 11,18 and 19; FILE NOS: GPA00001; REZ00001. Planner: Jayni,Allsep The applicant requests that the Planning, Commission hold a Public Hearing on.'the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Redwood Technology Center, an office and research & development campus that would include 262,5.00 gross square feet of office/R &D space and a 7,,500 square foot restaurant pad, and - forward a.recommendaton to the City Council on its adequacy. The applicant also requests ,a recommendation from the Planning Commission Tor the City Council to approve a "proposal that includes a request for a General Plan Amendment to re- designate the 14:4 -acre subject property from "Special 'Commercial" to "Special Industrial /Office Park "; and a rezoning request to replace: the .existing Highway Commercial (CH) - District on Parcel A, and the Light Industrial (ML) District on • Parcel B, to Planned Unit Development -PUD. Jayni Allsep presented the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes — January 8, 2002 David Early; Design Community Environment: Gave overview of the Draft EIR: Asked Commission: to :comment on the DEIR by taking public comment and give: Planning Commission comm_ ents on the DEIR and take action on the proposed Redwood Technology Center. Vin Smith: Gave historical background of project site and presented the Redwood Technology Center project as proposed_.. Two significant issues as identified: traffic and wetlands. LOS with or without the project is E to :F: This is a regional traffic issue and should be dealt with 'in a regional way. Will be improving signal at North McDowell and Old Redwood Highway. Public comment opened: Steve Nicholson, =Robertson Properties Owner and Developer of Parcel C: Project is 160;027 square feet of retail with 115;00 square feet of a big box retail and the remainder unidentified. Rick Parmer, 2.17 Fair Avenue: Lived in .Petaluma since 1986. Mitigations in the EIR are unacceptable.. Flood plain management; °is : still a serious issue. Flood storage on parcel: would have to be extremely high. ;Inadequate basin wide flood plain — created flooding in Thompson Creek since Redwood Business Park. ,Is also impacting' the eco system. Creates traffic issues and burdens the street system. Scale down projects on all three sites A big box,retail will-have a negative impact on downtown businesses. Rick Savel, Penngrove: Every increment is significant regarding traffic. Petaluma 1 7 S moving ahead with projects assuming Highway 101 :is 6 lanes and ihafhas not`happenedI City's model does not look` outside the City. Overlap traffic analysis zones and use County zone data. Do not agree with assumptions in the DEIR. Would like a county wide, meaningfiA analysis for traff c .before projects are approved. Overlap jurisdictional maps — doesn't evaluate potential of floodway. John King, 1055 Adobe Road; Have a aerious traffic problem on Adobe - Road.. Lssue with the4Redwood Technology project is groundwater recharge. Referred to Section 4.32 of 'the Penngrove. Specific Plan. John. Cheney, 55 Rocca, Drive: ;Do not, have faith :in EIRs. Would. like an explanation of MIKE; 11: Don't think� this project is feasible until we have a new FEMA map., Presented a letter to Planning Comm fission. Know there is a plan in place for Parcel C. Need a complete study of what 'is to be done on all Parcels. Please ,look at this project and be careful. Geoff Cartwirght 56 Rocca ;Drive! Don't see nything about cumulative impacts in the DEIR. Referred to his letter submitted on January 8, quoting pages of the -DEIR. 0 Planning Commis :' ion Minutes — , January 8,.2002 John Bertucci: Element of mitigation not being addressed. Reclaim the' cinema and turn back to the floodplain. Public hearing closed. Vin Smith: Responded to public comments on the project. Analysis concludes that the project does not flood downstream projects. Are storing water on the site. Continued to January 22, 2002. Adjournment: 11 :05 SAK- Planning Commission \Minutes \0I0802•.doc 0 • 3 .Planning Commission Minutes 'City ofPetaluma, California City Council Chambers City Hall, 11 English Street ,Petaluma, CA 94952 January 22, 2002 Telephone 707 /778 -43.01 / Fax 707/778 -4498 E -Mail. PlanninL(ii),ci.netaluma.ca.us Web Page http: / /www ;ci:petaluma.ta.us Planning C®nmiss on Minutes EXCERPT January 22, 2002, 7`:00 P.M. Commissioners: Present. Barreft, Dargie, Glass *, Moritesch o, O'Brien, von Raesfeld, Voun* • * Chair Staff. George White, Planning Manager Jayni Allsep, Project Planner Kim Gordon, Assistant Planner Jane Thomson,, Code Enforcement Officer Anne Windsor; .S'ecretary OLD BUSINESS; PUBLIC HEARING: I. REDWOOD TECHNOLOGY CEN'T'ER by Basin Street Properties; corner of Old. Redwood Highway and North McDowell.Boulevard:. AP NOS:` 007- 411 -7, 9, 11, 18' and 19; FILE NOS: GPA00001; REZ00001 Planner: Jayn"i.Allsep The applicant requests, that the Planning Commission hold a Public Hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Redwood Technology Center, an officeand research & development campus that would include262,500 gross ua q s re feet" of office/R &D space and a 7,500 square foot restaurant pad, and forward a recommendation to the City Council on its adequacy. The applicant also • requests a recommendation from the Planning Commission for the,City Council to approve a proposal that includes a request for a General Plan Amendment to re- .designate, the 14.4 .acre subject property from "Special Commercial" to "Special Planning Commission Minutes January 22, 2002 Industrial/Office Park "; and a rezoning request to replace the existing Highway Commercial (CH) District on Parcel A, and the Light Industrial. (ML) District on Parcel. B, to Planned Unit, Development -PUD. (continued from January 8 5 2002). Jayni Allsep, Project Planner: Gave an update, on Redwood. Technology DEIR, reiterated that public comment on the DEIR is closed, tonight the Planning Commission will be commenting on the DEIR. Betty _Andrews, Philip Williams & Associates; Ltd -.: Gave a presentation on the MIKE 11 Hydrology Model. Commission Comments: Hydrology: Commissioner Vouri: Felt hydrology was very well analyzed in DEIR. Two areas.that I felt were .inadequate :regarding the hydrology element: — I am not comfortable finding the DEIR adequate on a project that does not exist and the flows are "approximations ?' because - the,, grading plan is yet to be determined. There seems to be some kind of financial liability or impact on the City's emergency services since it. is the intent of this project that it flood on. purpose and then if there are people working in the offices or' parked cars in lots then emergency 'services would rescue them because the parking', lot • would be a temporary detention basin. Would like; to ;see a mechanism for the City to be reimbursed. Commissioner von Raesfeld: Do not have significant comments regarding hydrology: We, have to assume consultants; were given proper 'information and direction the difficulty .is that we will not know'.if they :right or wrong until it's too late. We would have to be sure that this project would have no sgiufi`caiit downstream impact. Commissioner Barrett: T airi also concerned about Parcel C and making a decision with just a scenario and not an _actual project. Jayni Allsep Responded to concerns; about Parcel C. When the Redwood Way Retail Center IS, evaluated under CEQA andif it is found, that the assumptions were not! correct, those issues Will then be addressed before that project can go., forward, Commissioner. 'Barrett: Referred to' pg. 181, second paragraph "the Outlet Mall Expansion Project would by itself 'increase the flow .rate and flood, elevations in the Petaluma .River ". How would we, be looking at that; comment in light of this DEIR? Asked about the wetlands. Betty Andrews- Looked at both ,projects independently and then combined to, see the. effect of both together. The effects of the comb ined. projects tracked almost, exactly the, •. Planning Commission January 22, 2002' effect of the 'Outlet Mall Expansion on its own. As a result the effect on the Petaluma River could looked at _as;not being cumulative between the two, Vin Smith: Responded to Commissioner` Barrett' question about the wetlands.. A benefit to creating the wetlands is that ,we will be detaining water that would otherwise enter the watershed and Willowbrook Creek at a peak flood event. Commissioner O'Brien: Thought the DEIR did an excellent job on mitigation of hydrology issues. Cumulative effects seem to be- further reduced with the scaling back of the Factory Outlet Expansion. Commission Dargie: Referred to Table 9 on pg., 1'74, regarding 1:0:0 year runoff and then when you go to Table 1.1, the percentages do not match up. Can you please explain. Betty Andrews: Table 9 shows ah-e amount of water that-would be running off Parcel B just caused by changes on Parcel. B. Table '1.1 shows; the flow.rate actually passing by the southeast corner of Parcel, Bat Holm Road which is the beginning of the Holm Road ditch — it's representing a larger runoff. Commissioner lVlonteschio: If we continue to pave over .our land, make detention ponds and continue to channelize the water, when and how do our wells get recharged? I would like this to be answered in this DEIR., �. Commissioner von Raesfeld Referred Ito page 1,81„ groundwater .section ..seems skimpy to me and raises a couple of ;questions:, Section 4A on - groundwater reads "the-project. site represents .1% of the total area, of the Petaluma Valley Groundwater basin7 and if makes some conclusions from there is this gross acreage and permeable acreage, ideal recharges vs non- recharged area? Commissioner Glass: In the .Report it 'talks .about zero net runoff as a Condition of Approval — I thzk that is absolutely necessary as a mitigation if this does become a project. Zero. net;,,,;fill I s absolutely necessary: A paragraph that .I found disturbing on Pg. .177, 3 paragraph — "flood water that would .flow through the project site has the potential to strand occupants and flood parked vehicles and would, flood, Redwood Way iiiaking the road impassable. Customer, employee and emergency vehicle ingress and egress would have to follow, an alternative route. In some instances flood water could, � revent p on of the project site." There ;is no mitigation. As a - evacuati condition "I find that unacceptdble. I share Commissioner Voun'9 comments when there is flooding to have- a'funding mechanism for reimbursement to the City for time spent by employees in eyent.of flood. Commissioner O'Brien: Regarding flooding and stranding of customers ;and employees. The Outlet mall has, detention ponds and to my knowledge no one has ever been..stranded there. Traffic: Planning Commission Minutes January, -22, 2002 Commissioner- O'Brien: Project has been scaled back and applicant is paying traffic . mitigation fees. Traffic :is a regional problem =. this project does not cause the traffic problems the City ofPetaluma is experiencing presently. Commissioner- Dargie: Referred to Pg. 75 – asked about details-of LOS of D as a benchmark.. Study area,has to be enlarged to include Penngrove. Applicant responded to question; "regarding Level of Service D as a benchmark Commissioner Monteschi'o: Analysis° of 200'6' assumed l O l is 6 lanes and Old Redwood Highway;is wid'ened`to. 4 lanes – very possible that-:it will not, happen. Was Old Redwood. Highwayanalyzed as only 21_anes? Is.there a standard about spacing of traffic lights? Weinberger: Desirable not to have less than :500. feet. Commissioner M.onteschi 1 o Need to include .Peringrove. Would like analysis done on 1.01 not being widened and Old. Redwood Highway as two lanes. Commissioner Glass: Want to see a- game plan for traffic – possible telecommuting, day care on site. Have concerns about formulas being used –if a fast food restaurant- goes ' into Parcel C,'want'to: see CUP. EIR talks about mitigations that should iapperi – ''should be shall. Identify how we pay regarding traffic. 'Traffic is a huge issue—how do we fund improvements = 'possibly redevelopment _fund. Do not see .how we can go ' forward making LOS worse than what already exists. Pg. 89 refers to retail generating more traff c – lacking in identifying Yiow funds will be raised to mitigate traffic issues ; specificallyto Redwood Highway overpass. Commissioner Barrett: Statement of intent is not :enough. No discussion regarding bus service (pg. 11 Policy T). Pedestrian connections where are they coming froiri? Think this is a fundamental missing link. Bike path is not discussed. either. Need to look further out – into Penngrove – heavily,impacted area. Funding is critical –not. all LOS F is equal. Traffic is; °weak = sympathize with engineer using old Modeling. Commissioner Vouri: Avoiding the additional car trips per day -- approximately 7,000 cars in one day in one spot. Concur the DEIR is ;not adequate in ' analyzing.. impact regionally: To have consistency with. our projects – want to use the traffic model used for the 'General Plan. Assuming 101 to be 6 'lanes "is inaccurate. LOS it 1985 G'eteral'Plan as level C' – project mitigation is not, in .keeping with the, General Plan. DEIR lists impacts at various 'intersections – 2005 without the project is -same LOS as now, 2005 plus project'LOS goes from B to D: Do not find traffic element adequate in description and mitigations. Commissioner von Raesfeld: Do not have significant comments that have not already '•; been raised: Planning Commission;Minutes January 22, 2002 •' Commissioner Glass: Parcel C sent; a letter saying traffic fees too high. Concerned and relieved by Memo from 'Council member Healy.. Commissioner Dargic: Want to clarify that traffic should include Penngrove at Old Redwood and Main and Adobe and Main. Commissioner Glass: Wanted to include Council Member Healy's memo into public record. Commissioner von. Raesfeld Incorporate Parcel C into the Final EIR. Commissioner Vouri: Made the following continents on a variety of issues: • Population, employment and housing Did not find EIR adequate .in addressing the housing demands put on Petaluma by the project. • Not adequate analysis on 'impact of downtown business due to big box retail. • More detailed . analysis of water supply as requested by Sonoma County PR &D memo. • Reiterate comments 'on. groundwater recharge,. 0.1 of entire valley — what' is amount of annual recharge being removed due to paving? • • Impressed sed wi t h proposal for wetlands —want to know how to turn dry wetland into wetland. ` • Air quality impact —: do not condone exceeding threshold of Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. District — proper mitigation. If mitigation is to decrease traffic am in agreement. If mitigation is'to reduce square footage — do not agree. Would like a comp done regarding traffic — use Rhonert Park Home Depot as a traffic example. ®- Virtual project° approach 'may 'be legal, however, it is fragmented — have analyzed proposed project, however, I don't know what the project is. Need specifics for Parcel C. to snake DEIR adequate. Commissioner Barrett: Concur that we need. to know what is proposed on .Parcel C. Infrastructure, pg 16 purple pipe in :addition to what .has been suggested. Pg 20 — bothered by air quality because it relates to Parcel C — can'make Condition of Approval that there can lie no drive through fast food. 5 13 Planning Commission Minutes January 22, 2002 Commissioner Monteschio:. Want analysis on General Plan amendment wih lose.maior tax dollars — want' project to be'beneficial to the. City. `Want, mixed use to be. looked at on this site. Commissioner Dargie Size and massing of buildings what will project look .like on this parcel — community character policies — does:.it address what may be blocked by°the massing 'of the buildings? Commissioner O'Brien: Parcel C — more or less impervious surface. Thought for a draft the EIR was very thorough. Commissioner Glass: Had comments on several areas: •' Pg. 1;10 regarding water capacity — pg. 119-- concerns regarding; water. 9 . Compliance for parks pg. 117 — re parks to population ratio. ® Pg. 122 — nowhere to put additional students —no mitigation I; am '.happywith. • Pollution pg. 212 - size of project on parcel C — does not reduce emissions. • Parcel C traffic generated — 'uncomfortable signing .off when I can't analyze logically, A motion was made to bung final EIIR back t Planning Comm ss on seconded. by Commissioner Mon. "tescho Y Commissioner O'Brien: No Commissioner Dargie: No Commissioner Monteschio: Yes Commissioner Glass: "Yes Commissioner Barrett: Yes Commissioner Vouri 'Yes Commissioner vonAaesfeld Yes Public hearing opened: Diane Reilly Torres, Rainer Avenue: Want Parcel C to be included. Referred to copy of Resolution adopted in 1989 —read excerpt. Do not agree with the merits of the project. Stan .Gold, 615 King Road: Couple of negatives. Need more retail and not more office space — there is a surplus of office- space now.. If project' is office space, we need a housing element as well. Public hearing closed: • j I' Planning Commission Minutes January 22, 2002 Vin Smith: Gave an overview of - the proposed' proj ect. Commission comments: Commissioner von Raesfeld: Extension of Redwood Way — public or private street? Vin: 20 feet public and then private. Commissioner von Raesfeld Encourage private road? Need a component of project out on the street — define public domain vs. buildings. Commissioner Vouri: Housing/jobs imbalance in the City.. Cannot afford to be doing projects that are high density—and not mixed use. Don't understand logic of not putting in housing. Disagree regarding noise issues — street frontage with mixed use /retail and apartments in the interior. Site begs for frontage on. North McDowell. Problem with no housing — housing would mitigate some traffic issues. ,Question economic impact of adding more office space. August 1999 — comments from Ross Parkerson, Chair of Site Plan and Architectural Committee regarding amount of parking pavement on this site. Proposed light rail stop on McDowell — as part of mitigation of traffic that the project could contribute. Commissioner Barrett: Need to look at what you wanted to do at Southgate and bring it here. Site begs for mixed use. Commissioner O'Brien: Like the project and think it's an excellent gateway to the northern end of City. Don't see how it will affect downtown. Have not seen theatres flooding. Commissioner Dargie No comments outside DEIR. Commissioner Montesch o , , Need to meet requirements of pedestrian and bike committee — path for employees to walk and jog. Glass office buildings. on west side facing 101 can potentially be dangerous due to glare. Don't like this look for northern end of Petaluma. Commissioner Glass: Can traffic be mitigated with a day care on Parcel C or mixed use? Vin Smith: Need to address possible glare, redirect traffic to Stubb. Road, less parking toward the street, mixed use. A motion was made by Commissioner Dargie and seconded by Commissioner /Monteschio to continue the project to a date uncertain. All in favor:.. • Commissioner O'Brien: Yes Commissioner Dargie: Yes VA 1 /' Planning Conunission Minutes Commissioner Moriteschio: Yes Commissioner Glass: Yes Commissioner Barrett: Yes Commissioner Vouri: Yes Commissioner'von Raeskld: Yes January 22, 2002 Adjournment: 11:50 SAPC =Planning,Con missiori\Minutes \012202.doc • • 11 Planning Commission Minutes -.May 14, 2002 • p, L tr City of Petaluma, California City Council Chambers City Hall, it English :Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Telephone 707/778 -4301 /Fax 707/7784498 E -Mail planning(&i.petaluma.ca.us Weh.Page http //- ww.ci.petalurria.ca.us 1 2 Planning Commission M nutes .EXCERPT 3 May 149 2002 - 7.00 PM 4 5 Commissioners: Present: Barrett, Dargie, Glass, O'Brien, Vouri 6 Absent von Raesfeld 7 * Chair 8 9 Staff. Michael Moore Community Development Director 10 Jane Thomson, Code Enforcement Officer 11 Jayni Allsep, Project Planner 12 Anne Windsor; 'S'ecretary • 13 14 15 NEW .BUSINESS 16 PUBLIC HEARING 17 18 1. REDWOOD TECHNOLOGY CENTER — FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL 19 IMPACT REPORT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA00001) 20 AND REZONING (REZ00001); LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST 21 CORNER OF OLD REDWOOD HIGHWAY AND NORTH 22 MCDOWELL BOULEVARD; AP NO'S 007-411-007,009, 011 AND 019. 23 24 Planning Commission recommendation to City Council regarding: 25 26 1. Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report:(EIR) 27 2. Request to amend the General plan land Use Designation from Special 28 Commercial to Special Industrial/Office Park 29 3. RequestAo rezone the subject property from highway Commercial (CH) 30 District and Light Industrial (ML) District to Planned Unit District (PUD) 31 1 including a.Unit Development Plan. 32 33 Jayni Allsep presented the staff report. • 34 35 Commissioner Darge Asked for clarification of Table 3 on pg. 94 of Volume 1 of Final 36 EIR. El Planning Commission Minutes - May 14, 2002 1 S teve Weinberger: Clarified .numbers for the Commission. The higher the speed,, the • 2 3 better the LOS. 4 5 Commissioner Glass Asked what traffic mitigation ineasures, would be vulnerable in 6 terms of complete• financing not being available to complete the improvements? 7 Previously asked about financial information regarding ihemitigations. 8 9 Jayni Allsep: Referred to ,Mitigation CIR -3 on pg. ,121, volume 1 = Old Redwood 10 -Highway is a regional facility, so the ability to. collect fees from this applicant for the 11 needed improvements is not feasible. The.other mitigations. are primarily related to the' 12 specific projects on each parcel. 13 14 Vin Smith: Referred to pg. 120, line 1, CIR -1 referring to Table 7 on -pg. 125 and CIR -2 15 on pg. 121, referring to Table 7, ;gives the breakdown of percentages. Capital. 16 Improvements - has #1 from table 7 on 'it. The Old Redwood Highway overpass is the 17 biggest ticket item. 18 19 Commissioner Vouri: Asked how the cumulative impacts are affected for the specific 20 -intersections at Penngrove and 101? 21 22 23 Steve Weinberger: Addressed Highway 101 and the Penngrove intersections and the mitigations. 24 25 Vin :Smith: Complemented staff and Design; Community & Environment for .collating 26 and analyzing all the information. Reiterated that Basin Street is committed to working. 27 with Mr. Savel and his committee regarding the ' Penngrove intersections. Concern with 28 language in the EIR and the fair share contributions. Believe Table• 7 overstates the, 29 calculations' of what• our share should be — would like that to be reevaluated. Support the 30 recommendation from staff. 31 32 Public comment opened: 33 34 Richard, Braun, 141 Grevillia: Process is not producing results that I would like to see as 35 a citizen. There is a conflict of rights of property owners and rights of neighbors. 36 Looking for balance — there is a serious problem with, a lack of standards. No one is 37 benefiting according to the 1984; :General Plan. Where are objective standards to 38 knowing what is acceptable? Identify City policies and, then measure standards. 39 Reported outright errors in. the EIR, for example, DeDMan..Flats only being west of Hwy. 40 101. States that the project does :not have significant impact on the police and fire 41 services. Mitigation is a series of promises and no one is being held accountable. This 42 way of doing business does not serve either the developer or the citizens of Petaluma. 43 Hope the commission will not :recommend the FEIR go forward and wait until. the new 44 General Plan and ;there are standards. 45 46 Pat McShane, .34 Myrtle Court: Represent myself and those who live in the flood plain 47 area. I am fighting for the area in which I live and that we do not flood again. Why are 2 Planning Commission Minutes - May 14, 2002 1 we building in the flood plain and where there are traffic problems – presently there is a • 2 vacancy rate in Petaluma.for this, type of development – why do this now? Hope you will 3 keep those of us in .the Payran area in mind. 4 5 Diane Reilly Torres, Rainer Avenue: Disappointed in the whole process. Wish there was 6 a public forum to discuss the: project` with Mr. White. This project will affect all of us. 7 Related to the findings necessary to approve the PCD rezoning, would like to know how 8 this project is in the publics' interest? Want to know how the Cm Community Development 9 Department will be able to monitor the proposed mitigations. Addressed the mixed -use 10 issue. 11 12 John Cheney, 55 Rocca Drive: The question of flooding and traffic are ridiculous. 13 Passed out some pictures to the Commission regarding the pipe referred to by Mr. Smith 14 at Corona Road, which would handle the water from the project site. Suggested stopping 15 here. 16 17 Geoff Cartwright, 56 Rocca Drive: Parcel C has its own EIR – has conditions which are 18 not identified in the EIR. Penngrove traffic is being increased which is a cumulative 19 impact. Read earlier from Article lb of the City's Zoning Ordinance. The applicant says 20 they will flood their. project – who else will they flood? Think the EIR is inadequate. 21 There are unfeasible mitigation. proposals – referred to 'Rockridge, Traditions, Petaluma 22 Factory Outlet Expansion these will all have cumulative; impacts. Read his letter • 23 passed out to the Commissioners. Asked:that the FEIR not be certified at this time. 24 25 Patricia Tuttle Brown, 513 Petaluma Boulevard South: Bike committee made 5 26 comments and 4 were responded to, including the com —rent requesting bike turn lanes'at 27 the . intersection of Old, Redwood Highway and North McDowell. Comment not 28 responded to concerning pedestrian friendliness –the comment was considered to be 29 related to the merits of the project and.noi the FEIR, so it was not addressed. Would like 30 to see mixed -use here to alleviate traffic and address some housing needs. 31 32 Public comment closed. 33 34. Bill White Basin Street Properties: Regarding mixed -use – we are in favor of this type 35 of development, however, this is not a °viable option for this area since it is in a flood 36 plain. area. We are proposing a two -story garage to mitigate some flooding „and flood 37 storage. Regarding traffic – we will be making a 'fair share contribution and 38 approximately $750,000 in traffic mitigation fees. Have paid over 2 million. in traffic 39 fees which was slated to be for the Old Redwood Highway overpass and that not has 4o happened., 41 42 Hydrology Issues: 43 44 Betty. Andrews, .PWA Addressed some of the hydrology : issues brought up during the • 45 public comment. The 84 -inch pipe brought up by Mr. Cheney was factored into the '46 analysis. The 36 -inch pipe. is at Industrial Boulevard. The assertion here is that the 84- 47 inch culvert extends all `the way to the river, and this is the first that.I have heard of this. Planning Commission Minutes - May .14, 2002 1 If there is an 84 -inch culvert that flows to the river, it would be prudent to put this 2 information into our modeling. 3 4 Commissioner O'Brien: Asked for clarification regarding the water flowing from, the site 5 referred to on Pg. 3 and 4 of the staff report. 6 7 Betty Andrews The project itself has very , little runoff and is allowing existing over- 8 bank flow conditions to exist. 9 10 Commissioner Barrett: Asked about 7 the cumulative affect of other projects such as 11 Rockridge and Traditions, which was brought up during the public comments. 12 13 Bill White, Basin Street Project: At the point that water goes off the site, there is a 14 backup at Corona road whether this is an :84 or a 36 inch pipe. 15 16 Betty Andrews: Do not believe these were factored into the model. Do not think a 17 project near Marin.Creek would affect this project, and it was not'looked at for this EIR. 18 19 Commissioner Glass: Brought up the idea of telecommuting as part of a traffic 20 mitigation program. 21 22 Commissioner, Barrett: Asked' how 1,300 daily trips would be reduced that is proposed in 23 the Mitigation Measure AIR -2c. • 24 25 Bill White: Trips would be reduced by ielecoinmuting, 4 -day workweeks or elimination 26 of some square footage if that is necessary to reduce the trips to 1,_300. 27 28 Jayni Allsep Suggested that when the Commission. makes their recommendation to the 29 City Council, they could request that, the' hydrology - consultant reexamine and confirm 30 the size and location of the pipes and. culverts in question, and if necessary, make any 31 necessary changes to the hydrology study. 32 Comments from the Commission: 33 34 Commissioner O'Brien: Find it adequate at this time. 35 36 Commissioner Dargie: Find the document adequate — would like the hydrologist `to. look 37 at the culvert and the pipe identified. How can we as a Commission be assured that these 38 in measures would be pint 'into place. 39 40 Commissioner Barrett: Have some problems with traffic — CEQA requires that the 41 mitigations are Teatried out -f or specific p u rp oses' — do n ot think we can move forward with 42 this because it is irresponsible. and .against, the public good. The EIR is based on a 43 General Plan amendment that would cost, sales tax dollars that we cannot afford at this 44 time. Do not think this is the interest of the city and the public. Have problems with. a 46 responsible p ri v ate y erson� w P notbbe the e '24-hours. Have difficulty of this affect. The • p with infrastructure and 47 community issues. In the Mitigation Monitoring Program, Hydro 3 -b -- does this only 4 . 1. Planning Commission Minutes - May 14 2002. 1 need to be done once. Do not think the monitoring is adequate for this EIR. Air 2a — 2 think it should be more aggressive than that to meet and beat the air quality issues. Air 3 2c — do not think that Js .sufficient or the monitoring is sufficient as well. Referred to pg. 4 137 regarding the impact. of the water supply. 5 6 Commissioner Vouri: Regarding the adequacy of the EIR I have a few comments. CIR- 7 1 — the fair share impacts are large capital improvements are well beyond the scope of a 8 single applicant t, however, .CIR -lb and lc are pretty standard for any project — do not 9 know why they are only - paying fair share — applicant should be paying for both of these 10 since they are adjacent to the project. C1R -la — can see how other applicants would be 11 involved in those. Table 6a on pg. 1,12 — this mitigation is 100% on this project — I do not 12 find CIR lb and c adequate unless it requires the applicant to fund 100% of 13 improvements. The flood modeling needs to be redone on what is actually out there and 14 why the conflict. The housing chapter of ,this, document says there may be need for 1,000 15 additional residences do not agree that 500 houses that the City permits to be built 16 annually is adequate. Alternative D in the EIR does begin to deliver on the changes that 1 17 think are necessary and is, the most environmentally friendly happens to be the same 18 page that refers to mixed -use not being considered because:parcels have different owners. 19 Believe that mixed -use is a viable option here, particularly on the third floor where 20 flooding would not be an issue. 21 22 Commissioner Glass: Questioning why the buildings had to be 7 "feet above grade for the 23 pedestrian friendly scenario. Do not see how this is pedestrian friendly. 24 25 Joshua Wolfe with DC &E: Referred to page 258 — the buildings could be raised, thereby 26 allowing parking underneath the buildings. 27 28 Commissioner Glass: Could find this adequate with some addendums. Want a financial 29 analysis for the fair share of traffic mitigation. 30 31 Jayni Allsep: Clarified how the mitigations and concerns of the Commission will go 32 forward as project conditions ,df.approval rather than as stated in the EIR. 33 34 Commissioner Glass: How do we make these mitigations happen up front? 33 36 Mike Moore: Clarified what the adequacy 'issue is regarding the EIR. 37 38 Commissioner VOuri: Asked if the Commission had authority to make changes to 39 mitigations in the EIR or just as conditions of approval to the project. 40 41 Glass Would like to entertain a motion that addressed the hydrology, childcare services 42 and traffic issues bought up by.Mr. Vouri. 43 44 M/S Dargie /Obrien to certify EIR with the stipulation that there will be a new field study • 45 to determine the adequacy of the hydrology model. 46 47 All in favor: 5 Planning Commission Minutes - May 14, 2002 1 2 Commissiorer O'Brien: Yes • 3 Commissioner Dargie: Yes 4 Commissioner Von'Raesfeld: Absent 5 Chair Glass: Yes 6 Commissioner Barrett: No 7 Commissioner Vouri: No 8 9 General Plan Amendment 10 11 Commissioner Glass: Pg. 60 -- am in favor -of the General Plan amendment because it 12 would not compete'with downtown. 13 14 Commissioner Vouri: No comment. Would be voting no on the General Plan 15 amendment. 16 17 Commissioner Barrett: Passed out, an article from the Press Democrat on May 8, 2002 — 18 quoting the article do not believe commercial use should be considered here. Do not 19 think °this amendni'entvouldlle a benefit to the,City. 20 21 Commissioner Dargie: No--comment. 22 23 Commissioner O'Brien: No comment. 24 25 M/S O'Brien/Dargie to amend the General Plan Land Use Designation. 26 27 3/2 vote — `Barrett/Vouri- no 28 29 Rezoning 30 31 Commissioner Barrett: Referred to page 6 of the staff "report. 32 33 Commissioner 'Vouri: Mitigations — circulations lb and c at time of project 34 implementation. Pedestrian friendly alternative is used 35 36 Consensus of committee . to require applicant to, construct improvements identified in 37 Mitigation Measure CIR -lb -and c, with the provision for a reimbursement agreement. 38 39 Commissioners Dargie; and O'Brien do not -agree with the pedestrian friendly alternative. 40 Glass agreed with pedestrian friendly alternative as did Commissioner'Barrett. 41 42 3/2 vote majority to recommend that the the pedestrian'friendly site plan (Alternative.D) 43 be considered, along with any resulting hydrologyimpacts. 44 45 Commissioner Barrett: Wants- on -site daycare. This was the consensus of the committee. 46 Want clear „a condition of approval thatwater going into the Petaluma river is filtered and 47 that it be. monitored. 6 Planning Commission Minutes - May 14, 2002 1 • 2 Commissioner Dargie; , Fix maximum height of the buildings to be consistent with 3 buildings nearby— 55'. 4 5 Commissioner Barrett: Eliminate facilities as one of the conditionally permitted uses. 6 7 Consensus on 55 foot building height limit. 8 9 Commissioner Glass: Wanted to put on the record regarding funding sources and 10 bonding capabilities to Widen the Old Redwood Highway overpass. 11 12 All commissioners support°the above. 13 14 M/S Vouri/O'Brien to support the rezoning, with the above recommendations. 15 4/1 — Barrett — no 16 17 18 19 Adjournment: '12:15 p.m. 20 21 SAP Planning Commissioin4V4inutes \051402.doc .7 7 ATTACHMENT 2 CITY OF . PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA MEMORANDUM Community Development Department, Planning'Divislon 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952 (707) 778 -4301 Fax °(707) 778 -4498 ` E- mail: planning@cipetaluma.ca.us DATE: July 12, 2002 TO: City Council FROM: Jayni Allsep Project Planner SUBJECT: Redwood Technology Center On June 10, 2002, the City Council considered the Final EIR ' for the proposed Redwood Technology Center. After receiving the staff report, a presentation :from the applicant's project team and comments from the public, the City Council voted to continue the item in order to have additional time to review the Final EIR and to allow staff to address specific issues raised at the meeting. ® Staff has prepared the attached list of questions and 'issues :raised at the June 1.0` meeting. The list is based on the collective. notes of City staff,' our consultants, and the applicant. Following each issue is a response that appears in bold italics. A public hearing has been scheduled for the City Council to again consider the project on July 22, 2002. Attachments 1. Responses to Issues raised at June 10, 2002 City Council Meeting 2. Memorandum from Hydrologist Betty Andrews, PWA, May 30, 2002 SACC -City Counci ]\Memos\redwoodtechctr7- 22.doc • Page 1 Redwood Technology Center Responses to Issues Raised At the June 10, 2002 City Council Meeting 1. Is there a gas station, proposed? There is no gas station proposed. The reference to a gas station in the Final EIR (Chapter 6, p.272, bullet'4, Human Health) was a typographical error. At one time, under previous ownership of Parcel A, there was a gas station proposed as part of a previous Shopping Center project (circa 1999); however, under.the current ownership of Parcels A and B there has never been a gas station proposed and there is not currently one proposed. 2. Is or is not the project in compliance with the'Petaluma Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan? Since the Redwood Technology Center application and plans were originally submitted in February 2000, , plans have been refined to show outdoor use areas and an • interconnected sidewalk system for pedestrian use (please see. Landscape Plan dated 2129/00). Application materials indicate that the applicant agrees 'to the requirements of the Petaluma Bicycle Plan. As more detailed plans: are submitted during the SPARC process, more precise information regarding the,location. :of•bike racks, lockers and other pedestrian and bicycle amenities, as. wiell:as indoor showers; lockers and eating areas will be included with the plans. Basin Street Properties has consistently agreed to comply with the Petaluma ,Bicycle rPlan. A condition of project approval requires that the Redwood Technology a Center Development Plan shall be revised 'to indicate thatbicycle amenities shall be provided in ccordance with the City of Petaluma Bicycle _Plan and shall be subject to the standard Site Plan and Architectural Review process. 3. What is the impact of the 84 -inch pipe that was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting? consultant, PWA, co ducted additional fieldwork and was able .to confirm the pres logy As recommended b the staff and the Plannin Commission, the EIR, hydrology '84 =inch,culvert discussed above. P ence of the iMA has revised the hydrodynamic' model used in the Final EIR to evaluate ".the' hydraulic and hydrologic impacts of the proposed Redwood Technology Center so that it includes the previously omitted "84- inch" culvert at the :end of the Holm Road. ditch. The effect of`the addition of the culvert on both the existing conditions and the with- project model results in a 100 -year event ' is extremely modest. As previously concluded in the Final EIR, this amount is within the range.of the model's computational uncertainty and can be considered in all cases to „quantitatively represent no impact. A memorandum from PWA that reports the findings of the additional field and modeling work is included as Attachment 2. • 4. What happened to retaining pond with gate at Redwood Business Park, why wasn't the second retaining pond built iand why was construction allowed on Lot 19 of the Redwood Business Park? According to information provided by the applicant, there was never a requirement: for a detention pond with mechanical gate for 'Redwood Business Park. This idea was discussed through the public hearings for Redwood Business Park; however, the SCWA refused , to accept this solution as it .relied on mechanical means for 'flood control, which was determined by:SCWA to be unreliable and inconsistent- with their standards.' The existing condition of the Redwood Business Park is the solution, required; by the conditions of•approval for the Redwood Business Park. Lot 19 was always considered for development and has development Standards that Would allow .three story buildings., .Upon processing the buildings, for Lot 19, it was determ'ined,by public input and SPARC'review that the one and two story, buildings that exist -today would be more appropriate ,given the existing hillside and the relationship With the adjacent neighbors. 5. How can we approve this EIR without information on Parcel C? The Final EIR prepared for the Redwood Technology 'Center treats ,Parcel C on a "Programmatc Levee' consistent with CEQA Guidelines. The level of development programmed into the, FEIR establishes the maximum level of development potential for Parcel C. Although the Parcel C development scenario analyzed in the Final ,EIR is consistent with, the application. 'that has been filed for Parcel C (Robertson ,Properties Group, December 2001), approval of .the Final EIR does n ot in any way "entitle" a project for Parcel C. ,If simply provides: the environmental thresholds for development on Parcel C This application .'which ; requires an amendment to an approved ,Planned Community Development (PC0), will be subject to a separate environmental review and public hearing, process, before the Planning Commission and the City Council:, .5. Mitigation Monitoring should be done more frequently for compliance with Transportatiion .Systems Management (TSM)' Program. Transportation d t aof project approval will require that he project sponsor- submit a System Management (TSM)': Progra "m to the 'City of Petaluma Community Development Department prior to the issuance of a. building permit` for the first phase of site development. As required by the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (1WMRP) actions for Impact AIR -2b which also requires trip reduction measures',an annual report shall be submitted which itemizes the programs to be implemented in. the upcoming year and the effectiveness of the programs of the TSM in the. previous year. The annual report shall demonstrate that TSM measures are being diligently, pursued and implemented to the maximum extent that is feasible. 7. How' can the impact on Highway '1.01 and in Penngrove be considered "Less than Significant? In the absence of any adopted. "or •suggested significance thresholds for facilities _ operating near the LOS E/F threshold, W- Trans developed a threshold which is based on • an increase in traffic neat 10 percent. Ten percent was selected because traffic volumes • Cap acity Manual,' Tran ` - Y y� � such as the Highway g va ry y percent from da to da Publications Research Board, and the Traffic Engineering , ,Handbook, Institute of Transportation Engineers (1TE); provide discussions of traffic volume variance, which substantiate this assumption. As noted in the Final EIR, improvements to U.S. 101 are in the planning process and are expected to be completed within approximately five years. In Penngrove, the project would' be expected to : increase traffic volumes by approximately, three percent. Planning for mitigation to the intersection of Main Street/Adobe Road - have been. attempted by the County but were withdrawn ,due to local objection. The County is currently conducting traffic analysis to determine viable options. Given this minor level of impact and situation where there is no adopted policy or approach for mitigation in Penngrove, it may be appropriate to assess the project fees commensurate with its level of impact. 8. How were traffic volumes projected if the City's model is out of date? Because the City's traffic.model yielded unstable results in the .vicinity of the Project, an alternative methodology was- employed in which growth factors were applied to existing traffic volumes. Growth factors were based on analysis. of historic traffic counts obtained at several of the study intersections in 'the past ten years. The resulting factors of approximately 2 percent per year are consistent with growth experienced throughout • Sonoma County. It should also be reiterated that the applied factors represent future conditions with no changes to; the existing circulation network, i.e., no widening of the freeway or the Old Redwood High wayovercrossing. F 9. The discussion in the EIR of the project's impact on jobs /housing balance is weak and conclusory. Section 4.3 of the Final EIR' gives information on job; generation and ,housing demand that would result from the project. It finds that the project would have a positive impact on the City's existing jobs /housing balance, and that the, number of additional housing units that could conceivably be required to serve : the project could be. accommodated under existing City plans. As noted in the Final ElR Petaluma currently has. a, jobs /housing imbalance, with 29,,033 employed ,residents and only 23,370 jobs in 20 00..,, While it.must ; be acknowledged that not all`employed residents will work inside the city.and that not all workers will reside in the city, a ratio of 1 employed resident for every job is ideal. Thus. the city currently has a shortfall , of 5,663 jobs. The Final EIR projects that the! project would result in 1,091' full =time jobs and 197 part - time jobs, for a ,total of 1,288' jobs. This would only partially make up for the current shortfall of 5,633 jobs; in the city. While it is likely that,.some of the employees that would work in the project would live inside of Petaluma, some would be new employees in the region who would require new housing. The Final' EIR finds .that the City already has plans to build more than enough • housing to accommodate all the workers in the project It would be unlikely that all project workers would require new,,housing,, since some would be existing residents in the city or the region, but the fact that the city could accommodate all�,workers. in new housing indicates that any needed 'housing required for the project could be built. The applicant has submitted a report prepared by Gruen Gruen + ,Associates which indicates that there is currently an imbalance of housing to jobs. ,According to the report, if every Petaluma resident wanted -to work in, the City of Petaluma and had the qualifications to do so approximately 5,600'residences would still have: to commute out of the city because of a job deficit: The report goes on to state that Petaluma currently has 2, 733 .more housin units than needed to house the local workforce. Although. the conclusions'of'the Gruen report have notbeen independently verified the r.:eport appears to support the discussion and conclusions contained in the FEIR. 10. The Level of Service (LOS) policies ;in the. General Plan should be. clarified as to whether theyare intended to relate to street intersections, street segments or both. The City's 'General Plan indicates that "On City streets where Level ,of 'Service (LOS) is currently at C or better, .,LOS shall not deteriorate below LOS C." This statement a "pplies to street segmenfs such as the ,Old'Redw.00d Highway street segment analyzed 'in the studies for the City of Petaluma and is consistent with State been applied in traffic EIR. A `threshold .of LOS. D /E' for intersections has .historical) and regional planning criteria. Staff has confirmed this interpretation with' the' former C►ty',traffic engineer.. 11. What is Caltrans threshold of significance for segments 'of Highway 101 that are already at LOS F ?. C a ltra ns and the SCTA have not indica a ny policy for segments of U.S. 101 which have been indicated to already operate at LOS,F conditions.. In its comment letter dated .November 28, 2001:on DEIR,, Caltrans staff did not indicate any concerns with level of service. on. mainline 101. 12. Why did shopping center pass-by traffic increase from 16 percent to 40 percent? Is 40 "percent unrealistically high? Trip Generation data from ITE suggested' a .rate„ of 16 percent pass -by rate for free- standing discount stores and - a variety of rates for shopping centers.: Originally, the 16 percent pass -by figure was used' for both the free - standing discount` store and -the shopping center use in order to: be conservative. Subsequent to this data being published, the ; newer Trip Generation 'Handbook, 'March 2001; , ITE, was acquired. 'This° document provides more refined'.pass -by data on .shopping centers. Therefore, this data, which indicated a pass -by percentage of 40 percent, was then used for the analysis. 13. Is analysis of Carbon Monoxide (CO) emissions missing from EIR Air Quality analysis? The Air Quality _section of the Final' EIR contains a discussion of potential carbon monoxide (CO): impacts on pp' 234 -235 and concludes "... the impact on 'local air quality • 4 is considered to be less than significant." Table 21 on page 237of he Final EIR provides • the data to support this conclusion. 14. Why wasn't a project consistent ,with the existing Specialty Commercial General Plan land use designation considered as an EIR project alternative? CEQA requires analysis of a reasonab le. range of alternatives; and not an exhaustive analysis of every conceivable alternative. The General`Plah is quite old and is currently being updated. Concepts in the General Plan 'are somewhat out -of -date in light of changes in industry in Petaluma, ' especially the rise of high tech, R &D, and telecommunications, industries. Thus it was neither legally required nor appropriate to assess an alternative consistent with the existing Specialty Commercial General Plan land use designation. 15. Were the Rockridge and Redwood ,Business Park projects, which,allegedly flow into Willow Brook Creek at the same point as the i1project, considered when assessing cumulative flooding impacts? Since the Redwood Business: Park is essentially built out,, it was included as, part of both the Without and' With Project conditions in the cumulative impact analysis of hydrologic and flooding impacts. The Rockridge and Traditions projects were not included in the cumulative impacts analysis. Projects to include in the cumulative flooding assessment,were discussed with City staff at the beginning of the ADEIR effort and' again during the public comment period. The initial assessment identified only the Outlet Mall Expansion as having the potential to interact with the Redwood Technology Center in a cumulative fashion with respect to flood issues.. When the Rockridge and Traditions development projects were raised as potential contributors toli cumulative effects, their 'locations in the watershed were considered. Each is on a small watershed that will reach peak flows very quickly during a storm, and then quickly' decline, in contrast to the longei development of high flows on the Petaluma River. Hydrologic modeling of the system shows that the flow from the Traditions and . Rockridge sites would affect ,peak flows on their respective drainages more than 4 hours prior to the peak on the mainstem of the river.. Flows would then tail off quickly, becomingg,negligible by the time - the ;peak on the Petaluma River is reached. This is not the case for the Redwood Technology Center site, which has the potential to Significantly affect Willow Brook flows that contribute to ,peak flows in the Petaluma River. Increased flows from the Rockridge site would be detained in the Denman Flat area, but the very' minimal increase in stage at the extensive Denman Flat storage area that could be .expected) from this project would not be ,expected to increase the outflow rate to the Petaluma „River at any given time, but would) rather create a very minimal change over an extended period of time. This impact would ;be considered de minim thus, it.was not necessary to include it in the cumulative impacts anal m►' ' analysis., • 16. The EIR .discussion of Water supply is based on "paper water" (i.e. water availability is not guaranteed). i The water supply discussion contained in both the Draft; 'and Final EIR is based on personal communications with the City of Petaluma Department of Public Works Superintendent. Because the project is -located within the City's Sphere of Influence, it was part of the water service area used. in the 19861 study to estimate future water use demand s `stated in the Final EIR, the oma County Water Agency (S.CWA) has begun implementation of the Water Supply and Transmission System, .Project by proceeding with environmental approval: Once this project is completed, there" will be sufficient water supply and transmission capacity to serve the project, 17. Why wasn't an economic analysis prepared to assess the potential impact of physical blight to the downtown? Section 15131 of the CEQA Guidelines state that an economic or social change alone is not considered a significant environmental effect. The evaluation of economic or social effects ,is generally considered optional: Agencies are not required to evaluate then, though they may. However, an economic' or !social change: causally related to a physical'• change maybe considered when the: significance of the'physical changes determined. CEQA, requires that an EIR look at - economic effects only 'if they would create a physical change, such , as blight The establishment of major retail development at the proposed location would. not necessarily result' in ,a' negative physical impact on downtown businesses. The kind: of retaill development, proposed on Parcel ,Cis quite, different from the range of commercial uses curren_ tiv existing in downtown :Petaluma„ which include clothing boutiques, °gift shops, art, jewelry , and antique shops. Therefore, its downtown clientele ;is :not likely to shift their purchases to the ,retail establishments proposed on Parcel C. Moreover,; the City, through the _Redevelopment Agency.and' its. support of the . Petaluma Downtown Association, has in place a range of programs: to: maintain the economic vitality of downtown. Consequently, the project's direct and cumulative environmental impact on downtown Petaluma w,ouldbe: less than: significant: 18. Shouldn't Mitigation Measure CIRC -1 b and 1'c be 100 percent responsibility of the, applicant, not just fair share? The -need for . miitigations at the intersection :of Old Redwood Highway /N. McDowell Boulevard is based _on LOSE conditions under the future plus project conditions. Since: the project would .cause this intersection to exceed acceptable standards, and since these mitigations would . enhance existing traffic operations at thee intersection, a condition of approval requires that the project sponsor be responsible for completing these improvements prior to occupancy of the first phase of development, and that the project sponsor be reimbursed by other (cumulative projects) within the City,over time. 19.Does staff concur with tfie. draft Statement of Overriding Considerations supplied by the • applicant? Do the draft Statements of Overriding Considerations contradict the EIR conclusions? Staff did not review the Statement of Overriding Considerations (ORC) provided by the applicant prior to them being distributed io Council. Furthermore, staff did.not include a statement of ORC in the draft resolution because staff does not presume to know the position of the City Council regarding the public benefit of the project. The project would .further many of the goals identified in the General Plan, however, whether the benefits .of °fhe project outweigh the significant unavoidable impact is for the City Council to decide:: If directed' do so at the next public'hearing, staff 'will prepare a resolution that incorporates the Council's position regarding the project benefit and ORC. 20. Is the pedestrian - centered alternative feasible? The applicants have raised questions as to the feasibility, of the Pedestrian- Centered Alternative, which is found in, the :EIR to be the Environmentally Superior Alternative. The questions center on °issues of aesthetics, economics and''hydrology. ® From" an aesthetic perspective, the Pedestrian - Centered Alternative was designed specifically to respond 'to directives in the City's regulations, which suggest that pedestrian - oriented" development is desirable when, compared to other development • forms. Although this is' a somewhat subjective finding, it' is based on existing City policy. The economic viability of a particular alternative is not a subject of CEQA. Neither the City, nor the EIR consultants can judge whether the proposed' project, this proposed alternative, or any other one, is economically viable, and they are not required to do so in order for the EIR to be acceptable. The applicants are correct to note that there are hydrological issues related to the Pedestrian - Centered Alternative, and these are acknowledged on page. 263 of the Final EIR, which states that the alternative, as designed, would require that some buildings be raised on stilts 7 feet' above grade to allow water to pass under hem. Other options, which are not explored in the Final EIR, would be to expand the width of Redwood Way to increase its conveyance: or to orient ithebuildings around' another pedestrian- oriented feature: on the site, thereby allowing the Redwood' Way alignment to, serve exclusively as a flood ,conveyance area. In any event, the drawing of the Pedestrian- Centered Alternative is intended only as,an illustration of the concept, and would need to be refined' if it were to be considered as an alternative to the project. Even if the aria_ lysis of the Pedestrian- Centered Alternative were to be changed to indicate this, alternative was marginally worse than the proposed project from a flood control perspective, the overall analysis would still indicate that the, Pedestrian - Centered Alternative would be the Environmentally Superior Alternative. This is because it out- performs the other alternatives in many other factors. It should be note that the identification of one or several alternatives that are • environmentally superior to the proposed project does not` require the City to adopt one of these alternatives in -lieu of the proposed project.. The City niay approve the project as proposed or 'with mitigation measures; provided that it either. 'mitigates the ,project impacts identified in the. E1R or makes findings of overriding consideration as- to why they cannot.be mitigated. 21. What about recreational opportunities? Are there any proposed? The''Gen 'Plan does not have any policy language about recreational facilities for -.non- residential uses. Although none are currently shown, there are opportunities for volleyball, and/or bat ketballcourts. The details of such facilities would -be included in the plans submitted as part of the `SPARC application. In addition, it should be noted that several outdoor seating areas are proposed to be interconnected with a sidewalk system the ties back to Parcel C and -North McDowell Blvd. 22. Why, hot ;consider a mixed -use project, including housing? As noted above, CEQA requir,.es analysis of a, reasonable range of alternatives; and not an ekhaustive analysis ',of.every conceivable alternative. Moreover, CEQA requires that the considered should have the ability to meet the�project's objectives and; that they should address. project impacts. In this , case ; the applicants do not have an objective to build .housing, and four other alternatives.. that .would' meet the applicant's: objectives were reviewed:. Moreover, no, impact with respect to housing provision was identified. Therefore; an EIR analysis of an alternative with housing was neither required • nor advisable. Some City decision - makers may. still , to consider requesting that the applicant's pursue a project that includes 'housing, and there is no reason that this .could .not be accomplished outside of the EIR. process. If this were to occur, however,. additional CEQA review of the revised project 'with housing would be required. Although° no •anal of the impacts of constructing housing on, the site has been completed, it appears that there could be some concerns 'regarding ,emergency management impacts. Even ifthe dwellings themselves were on upper floors above the floodplain ' there would still' be the problem of evacuation,. and private outdoor storage areas such as a garage might be subject to flooding, thereby endangering residents' property. Still, the City has recently approved: another project, the 'Downtown River Apartments by Eden Housing, which included housing within the flood plain, so it might be possible to: mitigate .these impacts. This would need to be assessed in' a subsequent review of any revised proposal thatincluded'housing. 23. Is there'money to ensure that mitigation measures can be monitored? Include a condition of approval requiring that applicant submit cash deposit to cover mitigation monitoring. • n 24. Should (here be a job /housing 'impact. fee for ,projects that exacerbate the City's current • jobs /housing imbalance? As discussed ,above and in the study by Gruen Gruen + Associates, there is.. no credible evidence to suggest` °that there currently is a jobs /housing imbalance. Therefore, there is no legal basis for imposing such. an impact :fee, 25. VVhat about the 2 -year sand 10 -year runoff data shown on page 200 of the EIR Hydrology and Drainage section. How is it that a 15 to 20 percent increase "magically doesn't _matter'? When the percentages of increase "relate to very small absolute ,values, they can be insignificant. • In this case, the.,abso lute amount of runoff change is an insignificant value. The total change in peak flow is less than 4 cubic feet per second (cfs), which does not contribute to on -site flood hazards. That flow is then routed into ,the Holm Road Ditch, where it could qualify as a significant impact if it affected "flood hazards. However, it does not. The projected increase instage that this very" small °increase in peak flow would create would. cause , an increase in .water elevations in the ditch that is so small that it cannot be considered an accurately quantifiable change, given numerous other uncertainties in the modeling process. The projected increase could not be considered significant using the standard of significance criteria used in the Final €IR, which is to "substantially increase the rate .or amount of surface runoff in. a manner that would result in flooding on or off - the site: "' Thet same applies to the effect of this very, small increase as it travels downstream to the Petaluma River. While the increased runoff from the proposed project is not significant, the project could have. a very significant effect on .,the flows in the Petaluma River if it had changed the timing or quantity of overbank :flows- from Willow Brook that subsequently flow to the Petaluma River. The applicant has made numerous. changes in the project` to avoid this - potential impact. 27. The Sonoma County Water .Agency (SCWA) letter of April 23, 2002 states that there should be no increase in runoff rate that could contribute to offsite flooding. There is currently no adopted ,City, policy requiring no net increase in runoff. Therefore, it was not used to evaluate project impacts. The Final EIR states" that the project would .have -a, significant impact with regard to hydrology if it would "...substantially increase the rate ,or amount `of.surface runoff in. a manner that would result in flooding on or off the site." The' implied "no, net increase in runoff" standard. would need to be clearly defined in order to be applied as a standard -of. significance., '.`Runoff'-' as defined by which storm events ( e.g, 100 -year, or 50 7 year,, or both) would need to be specified. A strict constuctionist,'s 'interpretation of "zero increase" could mean zero increase in runoff during storms, which would radically change the face of development in Petaluma, requiring vey large detention areas :and potentially eliminating most new development as well. Alternatively, it could .mean zero increase in peak flows only in the Petaluma River — as estimated within 'the accuracy of the tools being used to quantify change -- which is a standard this,project would meet. Or it could apply to peak flows throughout • the system. In any case, there is no adopted City policy or standard requiring no net increase in .runoff, and therefore - was not used as a standard of significance n the .EIR's • evaluation of`impacts. 28. Should the fill placed on Parcel C be considered ;as an existing condition, or should the pre - fill conditions be considered the baseline for complying with zero net fill. This issue relates to Parcel C, which is not part of the Basin Street application. This issue will be addressed in conjunction with the application submitted by Robertson Properties Group for "the Redwood" Way Retail Center proposed on Parcel C. 29. Does project comply with Zero Net Runoff` policy? Are the interim changes to the Zero Net Fill Ordinance still in effect? When do we need to extend it? Please see response to Question 27 regarding "no net runoff". Interirn changes to the Zero Net Fill Ordinance are 'in effect until mid - November 2002: Pursuant to -State law, the interim ordinance cannot be" extended again in its present form. A permanent ordinance amendment or a new interim ordinance must be adopted by mid = November. 29. What: is the: actual cost estimate for Redwood Highway Overpass? According to the applicant, in 1996 the County Congestion Management .Agency estimated, the cost of widening the. Old Redwood Highway Overpass; :to be $12 million. - Costs in 2002.or later are likely to be consideta6ly higher; since construction costs have gone up since 1996, but. no more recent cost estimate is available. 30. Why isn't' the Old :Redwood Highway Overpass ,and Interchange a. part of .the 1:01 wid_ e'ning • project? Based on information provided by Caltrans, the basic purpose of the proposed project on Route 101 between Route Vin Novato and Old Redwood Highway in Petaluma is to: • Reduce delay experienced by HOV lane users during peak commute periods on Route 1,01; • Facilitate multi -modal uses on Route 101 including the :use of express. buses, vanpools, and carpools by enhancing.,the level ofservice for these modes; • Convert the existing four. -lane expressway (from north of Atherton Avenue to Kastania Road) to a six -lane freeway, improve safety . by eliminating at -grade crossings'and providing control of access; ® Improve safety by addres "sing:current deficiencies; • Improve highway operations by iip stalling ,ramp metering and '`Traffic Operations System (TOS) hardware; • Give HOV .users faster access to the highway by widening existing on -ramps for preferential HOV "lanes; Integrate with county and city plans for the promotion of economic vitality in the region. 10 The ramp modifications are primarily to accommodate ramp queuing' as ,part of the ramp • metering improvements and HOV access.. The focus of the project is not to increase local street capacity. Therefore,, the ,widening of he existing overpass is not included in the project. 31. What is the public safety impact of having water in the parking lots during a flood event? Of various depths? The EIR says up to four feet of water in some parts of the parking lot during a 100 -year event? The Final EIR acknowledges that floodwaters flowing through the project site have the potential to strand occupants 'and Rood parked vehicles. When water is flowing on Redwood Way, alternative ingress and egress routes would be required. Peak flood levels are estimated to be at..about elevation 34.0 MSL. The parking area on Parcel A that would be parallel and adjacent to McDowell Boulevard is 'below' elevation 34.0 MSL. Near the intersection of Redwood` Way and North McDowell; 4the parking area is as low as elevation 28 feet MSL. Duringthe hypothetical 100= year,flood analyzed in the Final EIR, flood levels would be above elevation 32.0 feet for a period of 7 ; hours, above elevation 30.0 feet MSL for 9 hours, and above elevation 28.0 feet MSL for 19 hours. On Parcel B proposed ,parking: area would generally be between elevation 33 and 34. Egress from Parcel B with floodwater at elevation 34.0 MSL would be difficult and would require driving through about 1 foot of water. -During the hypothetical 100 -year flood analyzed in the Final EIR, flood levels would be above elevation 33.'0 feet MSL for a • period of about 4 hours. Mitigation Measure HYDRO -1 describes mitigation intended to protect property and safety of tenants and customers of the proposed project. It M the intent of the mitigation measure that the building owners and operators have in place a :formal flood management plan in the event of imminent flooding. 'The mitigation measure requires that the plan specify procedures to evacuate tenants and customers .from the complex should flooding ham er a 9► evacuate vehicles from parking areas that could experience flood depths of inches'orgreater, prevent access to flooded parking areas and access roads and identify those persons on the property management staff fnot City employees) that are responsible for maintaining and implementing the flood management plan. With the implementation of this mitigation, the public safety impacts should be reduced to a level that is less than significant. Since buildings on the project site would be built at least two, feet above the 100 -year flood elevation, it is unlikely that "wafer would flood the buildings. The ,flooding of a parking lot that serves a private Office development would not necessitate evacuation by the Fire Department. The usual procedure for flooded parking lots is for the Fire Department to contact building owners /managers and recommend evacuation preparation. The °"mitigation described above would put these measures into place without the. need .for Fire Department oversight. If evacuation were necessary; the Fire Department' has appropriate' equipment. and mutual aid agreements with several • neighboring jurisdictions that are less affected by a 100 -year flood event. 11 33. Do we have any projections of the 'fufure space needs for the telecom industry in Petaluma? And when will this additional space be needed vis -a -vis the timing of widening 101 T • City staff does not have any projections for the future space needs for the telecom industry in the City of Petaluma. Any such projections would be speculative and'.subject to change based on market conditions. 32. Would the use of permeable paving in the parking lots have an impact on the hydrology of the site? Yes. The use of permeable paving materials would reduce peak runoff from. the °p'roject site in at least some storms and would likely reduce total runoff ,volumes as a result of percolation toy groundwater. However, it may ,have negligible effect on peak flows, in larger storms, as the ground at the site may. be either inundated or sdtufated at peak rainfall times during such storms. is 12 ATTACHMENT 3 DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. N.C.S. . RESOLUTION OF THE PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL CERTIFYING A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL. IMPACT REPORT FOR THE REDWOOD TECHNOLOGY CENT-ER`PROJEICT LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF NORTH.MCDOWELL BOULEVARD AND OLD REDWOOD HIGHWAY ADJACENT TO HIGHWAY 101 (APN 007- 411 -7, 9,11,18 and 19) The City Council of the City of Petaluma finds and determines that: WHEREAS, planning applications were filed by Basin Street Properties requesting approval of a . general plan amendment, rezoning and Unit Development Plan to permit the construction of an office /research and development campus with 262,500 square feet of office/R &D space �a 7,500 square foot freestanding restaurant building pad; 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 limits; and WHEREAS consistent with the requirements of the City of Petaluma Environmental q Y Review Guidelines and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the City determined that the proposed development had the potential to' result in significant environmental. effects. As a result the City decided to prepare an Environmental Impact Report, and a Notice of Preparation was published and distributed for a 30 -day review period on January 18, 1999; and WHEREAS, the City expanded the scope of the EIR to include a future development scenario for the adjacent Parcel C, owned by California Drive -In Theatres and further identified as APNs 007 - 411 -020 & 021. The development scenario for Parcel C assume the demolition of a movie theater and its replacement with 115,323 square- feet of free standing discount store (including an open -air garden center), 10,454 square feet' of restaurant space and .34 square feet of general retail space; and WHEREAS', the City has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), dated October 2001. The• City observed a 45 -day public review period for the document, extended. the comment period beyond the required 45 days, and held public hearings with is the Planning Commission on January 8 and January 22, 2002; and 1 WHEREAS, the City has evaluated the comments received by public agencies, utilities, organizations, special interest groups and person who reviewed the .DEIR, and has prepared a Final EIR responses to comments received during the 45 -day public review period; and WHEREAS, said comments received on the DEIR, and a list of individuals; ;groups, organizations, and agencies commenting on the DEIR_ have been included in the Final EIR for said project, as required by:Section 15132 of the CEQA Guidelines. Iri zddition, 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 custodian of record of proceedings for this project is the Community Development Director, and WHEREAS, the City desires and intends to use the Final EIR for the 'Redwood Technology Center as the environmental documentation required by CEQA for each phase: of discretionary actions required for this project by the City, and WHEREAS, on May 14, 2002, the Planning Commission of the City of Petaluma recommended that the City yCouncil certify the Final EIR; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby certify -the Final EIR based. on the findings that: 1.. The Final Environmental Impact Repo which consists of Volume I (D amended subsequent Reporting Program); Appendices and. su ,compliance with. the. Environmental Review .G'uidelines. raft t (Final EIR) dated May 3, 2002, Environmental. Impact Report as to public comment and Mitigation Monitoring and and Volume II (Response to Comments document; pplemental information has been completed zin requirements of CEQA and the City of Petaluma 2. The City Council has exercised its independent judgment in evaluating the Final EIR and has, considered the comments received during the public review period on the, Draft EIR. 3. A Mitigation Monitoring. and Reporting Program has been prepared to ensure implementation and compliance with all measures required to mitigate all.butone significant impacts to less- than- significant, levels. • • 2 A`T'TACHMENT 4 • DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. N.C.S. RESOLUTION OF`THEPCITY.OF PETALUMA ADOPTING FINDINGS AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND APPROVING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) FOR THE REDWOOD TE'CHN,OLOGY CENTER PROJECT LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF NORTH MCD,OWELL BOULEVARD AND OLD REDWOOD HIGHWAY, ADJACENT TO HIGHWAY 101 (APN 007- 411 -7, 9,11,18 and 19) The City Council of the City of Petaluma finds and determines that: WHEREAS, planning ;applications were filed by Basin Street Properties requesting approval of a general plan amendment, rezoning, and Unit Development Plan to permit the construction of an office /research and development campus with 262,5.00 square feet of office/R &D space a 7,500:square foot freestanding restaurant building pad; 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 limits; and • WHEREAS, consistent with the requirements of the City of Petaluma Environmental Review Guidelines and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the City determined that the proposed development had the potential to result in significant environmental effects. As a result the City decided to prepare an Environmental Impact, Report, and a Notice of Preparation was published and distributed for a 30 -day review period on January 18, 1999; and WHEREAS, the -City expanded the scope of the EIR to - include a future development scenario for the adjacent. Parcel. C, owned by California Drive -In Theatres and further identified as APNs 007- 411 -020 & 021. The development scenario for Parcel C assumes the demolition, of a movie theater and its` replacement with 115,323 square feet of free - standing discount store (including an open -air garden center), 10,454 'square feet of restaurant space and 34,250 square feet of general retail space; and WHEREAS, the City has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact. Report (DEIR), dated October 2001. The; City observed a 45 -day public review period .for the document, extended the comment period beyond the required 45 days, and held public hearings with the Planning Commission on January 8 and January 22, 2002; and • WHEREAS, the,.Cityhas evaluated the comments received by public agencies, utilities, organizations, special interest groups and :person who reviewed the DEIR, and has 1 prepared a' Final EIR responses to comments received during the 45 -day public review period; and 0 WHEREAS, said comments received on the DEIR, and a list of ;individuals; groups, organizations, and agencies commenting on the DEIR have been included in the Final EIR for said project, as,requiredby Section 15132 of the CEQA Guidelines;' and WHEREAS', 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 Monitori ng 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 gu'i'delines 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 record. The statement of overriding considerations must be supported by substantial evidence in the record; and WHEREAS, on June 10, 'and Marcli 3, 2003 the City Council held duly noticed public hearings on;the planning applications for the Redwood Technology Center accepting all written and verbal reports and testimony. As apart of this hearing process, the City Council has considered the' Draft and Final, EIR, recommendations by the Planning Commission and/or City staff, and comments received' during the review�proeess. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby make the following f ndiiigs All of the significant impacts identifiedin 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. As outlined in the FEIR (Table 7), the Redwood Technology Center Project would contribute to, less than half of the additional traffic volume on the Old Redwood Highway overpass. 4. The Final EIR identifies 'Mitigation Measure CIR =3, which provides fora fair- share contribution to widen the overpass to provide four lanes. However; widening, of the 2 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 EIR 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 Alternative. Under the No Development Alternative, construction of the Center would not occur. The Center site would remain vacant, with the existing, vacant Pacific 'Theaters complex remaining in place on the adjacent site. 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 fmdings).. Finding. The Office -Only .Alternative is hereby rejected as infeasible because in' addition to the development .originally proposed on the proj ect site ('Parcels A and_ B) it also envisions office development on an adjacent property that' is not owned by the project sponsor. Furthermore a separate pending .application has been submitted. for the Pacific Theaters property, which proposes a retail development on that property (Parcel Q. With regard to the one significant unavoidable traffic impact; the Office -Only Alternative would not reduce this impact to a less-than- significant level. C. Pedestrian-Centered Alternative. Under the Pedestrian-Centered Alternative, the Center would be developed with the same: square footage of s to plan s and office buildings would be red e development Mitgated Project.Alternative, but the gned =,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 includeparking underneath. " Comparison io the Mitigated Project. While the Pedestrian- Centered Alternative circulation on the site this alternative was develo to further = facilitate pedestrian site plan included in the Final EIR was intended ped 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. the project. Specifically, the Pedestrian- Centered Alternative would require that the, buildings M that front the intersection of North. _Boulevard and,Redwood Way to be elevated (with parking. underneath) seven to teri 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 des'i'red effect of providing a more pedestrian friendly environment on the site. Furthermore, the Final. 'EIR concludes that the Pedestrian - Centered Alternative would .have fewer traffic and, circulation impacts than the Mitigated Project Alternative partially be the Pedestrian- Centered Alternative would include an on -site day care center that would reduce trips. The project sponsor,. however, has decided to include in the Mitigated Project Alternative a day care center. as recommended by the:,Planning Commission. Any other trip - reduction advantage of the Pedestrian - Centered Alternative over the Mitigated Project Alternative would be a reduction in midday. trips (when roadways are relatively less crowded), rather than peak hour trips. Finding: The Pedestrian - Centered Alternative is hereby rejected as infeasible because it would require the buildin g. pads proposed near the intersection. of Norih 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 �environnient is on the site. Furthermore, with the incorporation of a day care center in the • Mitigated Project; Alternative, the Pedestrian - Centered Alternative would not be measurably better than the Mitigated Project Alternative relative to traffic and circulation impacts. 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 use (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 a mixed -use alternative economically infeasible. Statement of-Overriding Considerations. [The following draft Statement is provided for the Council's consideration. The 'City Council may adopt any or all ofthe findings as drafted or as modified. The findings must be supported by substantial evidence in the record] 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 arid, 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: The Project will provide 262,000 square feet of office ,space that targets high- technology companies, thereby permitting expansion by Petaluma's existing high - technology companies and/or moving of new high - technology companies into Petaluma, consistent with Local Economy Goals 1 and 2, Objectives a, b and c. 2.. The Project will provide an office and research and development campus with attractive pedestrian amenities and an on -site restaurant. 5 3. The Project will improve a site that presently is not in productive use and °is surrounded by other development and a major highway, thereby improving the cohesiveness of the area. 4. The Project will increase the. potential for new higher- paying employers to locate in Petaluma, consistent with Local Economy Goal l .of the General Plan. 5. The Project will increase the potential for existing higher- paying employers to remain in Petaluma (by providing: 'expansion 'spaces); consistent with Local Economy Policies 1 and 3, Objective b. 6: The Project potentially will increase the number of persons who both work and;live in Petaluma,, consistent with Local Economy Policy 7 of the General Plan. 7. The Project will provide employment opportunities for highly- trained workers. 8. The Project will be economically beneficial to the City of Petaluma by a), generating retail sales taxes from the restaurant: uses; b) generating significant property taxes; and c) generating significant tax ,increment revenue for the Redevelopment Agency; all .of which are consistent 'with Local 'Economy Goal '2 and Objective g. of the General Plan. 9:, The Project . will develop the site with appropriate uses in appropriate 'locations without`.causing downstream flooding.iiicreases or flood flow backups. • 10. The Project will develop the' site with attractive buildings and site layout that is consistent and compatible with surrounding developments and that is attractive and inviting'to users and passersby.. The City" Council 'finds that the' .a Mitigation -Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMU), 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. • on ATTACHMENT 5 • DRAFT .RESOLUTION NO. N.C.S. APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN TO REDESIGNATE PARCELS TOTALING 14.4 -ACRES FROM ".SPECIAL COMMERCIAL "' TO "'SPECIAL.INDUSTRIAL % OFFICE PARK" FOR THE REDWOOD TECHNOLOGY CENTER PROJECT LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF NORTH MCDOWELL BOULEVARD AND OLD REDWOOD HIGHWAY ADJACENT TO HIGHWAY 101 (APN' 007 - 411 -7, 9, 11,18 and 19) File GPA00001 WHEREAS, an application to amend thei General Plan was filed by Basin Street Properties, on behalf of Redwood Technology Center, LLC,, requesting a General Plan Amendment to re- designate the subject property from "Special Commercial' to "Special Industrial /Office Park"; and WHEREAS, the Planning .Commission held duly noticed public hearings for the proposed General ',Plan Amendment on January 8, January 22 and May 14, 2002, and considered all written and verbal reports and testimony on the matter before recommending approval of the General Plan Amendment to the City Council; and WHEREAS, all reports and communications to the Planning Commission were forwarded to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Amendment have been considered, and proper action has been taken by the City Council in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and local governmental guidelines in that a Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) has been certified by adoption of a separate resolution; and. WHEREAS, the City Council held duly noticed public hearings, on the proposed Amendment on June 10, 2002 and March 3, 2003 before rendering its decision. NOW THERFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Petaluma City Council hereby approves the Amendment to the General Plan land use designation from "Special Commercial" to "Special Industrial /Office Park" allowing the Redwood Technology Center to establish at this location, based on the findings specified below: FINIDIN.GS'FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT: 1. That the proposed amendment is deemed to be in the public interest to provide for orderly development of appropriate research and design (R &D) and office uses. . The Special Industrial /Office Park designation allows a range of land uses that are appropriate for the site and that will not create a nuisance to existing surrounding uses. 2. That the proposed General Plan Amendment, is consistent compatible with the rest of the General Plan acid any implementation programs that may be affected. The Special Industrial/Office Park designation at this site incorporates the policies to develop underutilized properties of the General Plan. The Redwood Technology .Center proposal subject. to conditions of approval, will help further the objectives, policies and programs of the General Plan. 3. The potential impacts of the proposed amendment have been assessed and ;have been determined not to be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. 4. That the proposed amendment has been processed in accordance 'with the - applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the California Environmental Quality Act., The requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been safisfied 'through the preparation of a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), which analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the General Plan Amendment, and represents an adequate documentation of the environmental implications and possible. mitigation measures of the proposed project for use in decision making: The City supported by substantial l mf each 'significant. impact, which are . g record,* and all, feasible mitigation, • measures, as .identified in the Final. EIR prepared for the Redwood, Technology Center are. herein incorporated into the project and/or as' conditions of project approval. A copy of Notice of Availability of "the Draft Elk was published in'the Arius Courier and provided to residents and occupants within 3.00 feet of the site,, in compliance with City of Petaluma CEQA requirements. 2. .J ATTACHMENT 6 ORDINANCE NO. N.S.C. Introduced by Councilmember Seconded by Councilmember REZONING PARCELS 'TOTALING 1.4.4 ACRES, APN 007-411-7,9,11,1,8 and 19 FROM HIGHWAY—COMMERCIAL (CH)- PARCEL A, AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (ML) DISTRICT ON PARCEL; B TO PLANNED UNIT DISTRICT (PUD) TO ALLOW FOR,DEVELOPMENT OF AN OFFICE/R&D TO BE .KNOWN AS THE REDWOOD TECHNOLOGY CENTER,LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF NORTH MCDOWELL BOULEVARD AND �OLD,REDWOOD HIGHWAY ADJACENT TO HIGHWAY 101 FILE NO: REZ00001 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council, finds that the Planning Commission filed with the City Council its report set forth in its minutes Of 'May 14, 2002, recommending the adoption of an amendment to Zoning Ordinance Section 1072 N.C.S., as amended, by reclassifying and rezoning certain lands being more particularly described as Assessor's Parcel Nos 007- 411 -7, 9, 11, 18 and 19, a 14.4 -acre .site located southwest of North McDowell Boulevard and Old Redwood Highway adjacent to Highway 101 Section 2. The City Council further finds that said Planning Commission held public hearings on said proposed amendment on January 8, ,January 22 and May 14, 2002, after, giving notice of said hearings,, in the manner, for the period, and in the form required by said Ordinance No. 1072 N.C.S., as amended. Section 3. Pursuant to the provisions of Zoning Ordinance No. 1072 N.C.S., as amended, the City Council finds as follows, The proposed Amendment to Zoning Ordinance No. 1072 N.C.S., to classify and' rezone the subject parcel from Light Industrial (ML) And Highway Commercial (CH) District to Planned Unit District (PUD) will result mi amore desirable use of land and a better physical environment than would be) possible under any single zoning district or combination of zoning districts. • 1 I The proposed uses comply with the Special Industrial/Office Park General Plan designation, which allows for a campus -type development for employers who would contribute to the City'sl objective of increasing employment densities. Additionally, this proposal incorporates the policies and guidelines of the FUD- Planned Unit District of Article 19A of "the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The public necessity, convenience and welfare clearly permit and will. be furthered by the proposed Amendment to ;the Zoning Ordinance, reclassifying and rezoning the subject property to Planned'Unit District. The Planned Unit District Guidelines/Development Standards describe permitted and conditional. uses as well as those that would not otherwise be allowed to be established at this location. This specific list of uses prevents the creation of any nuisanceeto the existing surrounding uses. 3. The requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ;(CEQA) have been satisfied through the preparation of a Final Environmental Impact Report ,(EIR) which analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the General Plan. Amendment, and represents an adequate documentation of the environmental implications and possible mitigation measures, of the proposed project for use in decision- making. The City Council has;made written findings for each,significanf impact, which are supported by substantial evidence in the record, and all feasible: mitigation. measures, as, identified in `the. Final EIR prepared for the Redwood Technology Center are herein .ncorporated,into the project and/or as conditions of project'approval. A copy of Notice of Availability of the Draft'EIR was published in the Arius Courier and provided to residents and occupants. within 30& feet of the -in compliance with City of Petaluma CEQA requirements. Section 4: Pursuant to the provisions of Zoning Ordinance No. 1072 N.CS., and. based upon .the: evidence it has received and in accordance with the findings -made the ;City Council hereby adopts an amendment to said Zoning Ordinance No. `T072 N.C.S., so as to reclassify and rezone said 'property herein referred to, in accordance with -the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Section 5. , The City Clerk is hereby directed to post this Ordinance for the period and. in the manner required by the City Charter. IF'ANY SECTION, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase or word of`this Ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, unlawful or otherwise invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Petaluma hereby declares that it would have passed and adopted this Ordinance and each and all, provisions thereof irrespective of C 2 the fact that any one or more: of Said provisions be declared unconstitutional, unlawful or otherwise invalid. INTRODUCED and ordered Posted/Published this day of ADOPTED this day of , 2003, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor • ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: • City Clerk City Attorney 3 ATTACHMENT ' 7 • DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. N.C.S. APPROVAL OF THE UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TO ALLOW FOR,DEVELOPMENT OF AN OFFICE /R &D CENTER TO BE KNOWN AS THE REDWOOD TECHNOLOGY CENTER LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF NORTH MCDOWELL BOULEVARD AND OLD REDWOOD HIGHWAY ADJACENT TO HIGHWAY 101 (APN 007- 411 -7, 9,11,18 and 19) WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. N.C.S., Assessor's Parcel Numbers APN 007 - 411 -7, 9, 11, 18 and 19 comprising of 14.4 acres, has been rezoned. from Light Industrial (ML) and Highway Commercial (CH) 'District to Planned Unit District (PUD); and WHEREAS, by action taken on May 14, 2002„ the Planning. Commission considered and forwarded a recommendation to the City Council on the Redwood Technology Center project, to permit the construction of an office /research and development campus with 262,500 square feet of office/R&D space a 7,500 square foot freestanding restaurant building pad; and WHEREAS, the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project have been considered, and proper action has been taken by the City Council in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and local governmental guidelines in that a Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) has been certified by adoption of a separate resolution; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the proposed Unit Development Plan and PUD Regulations, as set forth in the attached Exhibit A, as revised or modified, and in- accordance with the recommendation of'the Planning Commission, finds that: That the Unit Development Plan, including the Development Standards will "result in appropriate and compatible uses in. the district. 2. That any P.U.D. District is proposed on property which has suitable relationship to one ;or- more thoroughfares, and'that` said thoroughfares are adequate to carry any additional traffic generated by development. 3. That the plan for the proposed development. 'presents a unified and organized arrangement of buildings and service facilities which are appropriate in relation to adjacent or nearby properties, and that provisions for adequate landscaping and/or screening are included to ensure compatibility. Conditions have been incorporated requiring design and development standards that are compatible with neighboring developments. 4. That the natural and scenic qualities of the site are protected, with adequate available public and private spaces designated on. the Unit Development Plan. 5. The development of the subject property project in the manner proposed by the applicant, and as conditioned, will not be detrimental to the public welfare, will be in the best interests of "the City, and will be in keeping with the general intent and spirit of'the zoning regulations of'the City of Petaluma, and with the Petaluma General Plan. The project, as conditioned, complies with the applicable provisions, of the Municipal Code and the General Plan. The recommendations and conditions, of City Departments have been incorporated into conditions of approval to the extent. "that they apply to Development Plan. The project as proposed supports a number of policies of the Petaluma General Plan such as: ComMunity Character Chapter Policy 3 — Low profile, horizontal development shall be encouraged. Locations and criteria to allow for taller buildings will be studied. Policy 6 — Well designed development that will be harmonious with their setting and /or enhance the city s image shall be encouraged. Policy 10 — The City shall encourage public and private landscaping along or in all major streets. Policy 14.2 — New development shall include pedestrian and bicycle circulation within and through the site to connect existing andlor planned City -wide pedestrian andlor "bicycle networks. Policy 20 —The clustering of commercial enterprises shall be encouraged. Additional strip commercial shall be discouraged along arterial streets including Lakeville, Bodega; East Washington, Petaluma Boulevard and Old Redwood Highway. The proposed project incorporates design features that are consistent with and achieve the intent of most. of the policies set forth in this Chapter. The buildings proposed on parcels A and B would be low- profile, protecting surrounding views of the hills, and the project site would be well landscaped with trees in the parking areas and in front of the buildings and along the North McDowell frontage: The project would also preserve some wetlands on -site within a wetland mitigation area, which addresses the General Plan objective to preserve meaningful and usable urban open„ space in development. Although plans for the project do not demonstrate compliance with the Bicycle Plan, mitigation measures identified in the Traffic and Circulation section of the EIR would require improved pedestrian connections and facilities as well as bicycle lockers and racks, and employee 2 showers in 'accordance with recommendations contained in Appendix A of the Bicycle Plan. As conditioned, the project would conform to the policies of this Chapter. Land Use and Growth Mdnagement Chapter The goals and policies of the Land. Use and Growth Management* Chapter reflect the City's overall philosophy on public and private development. The proposed project is located within the Urban Limit Line and is consistent with City policy to limit growth within these boundaries. Similarly the project, is consistent with the Land Use policies that support and ,reinforce city- centered. development. The project is consistent with the intent of the Special ;Industrial /Office Park designation, which is to support well - designed, master, - planned, campus -type developments for employers who will contribute significantly to the City's objective of increasing emploiyment densities. In addition, the Redwood Technology'Centerwould contribute to the tax. base of the City by providing an opportunity for high-wage residents to work in the City. Furthermore, the project does not preclude the development of the adjacent property, Parcel C, as a tax- generating retail center. Local Economy Chapter Policy 6 — The City shall actively attempt ;to increase the number of persons who both work and live in Petaluma. Policy 7 - The City. shall: actively encourage new industries that will employ Petalumans. The project could provide, as many as 1000 full -time; jobs, many of which would be higher paying positions for which Petalumans are currently out- commuting to other communities in the Bay Area, Therefore, in general, the Redwood Technology Center would help to achieve the Local Economy Chapter's goals, objectives and policies related to creating sources of local employment, attracting major office projects to the city and increasing the number of people who live and work in Petaluma. Transportation Chapter Policy 1: On streets where.Level of Service (LOS) is currently at. "C" or better, LOS shall not deteriorate below "C ". Where 1985 LOS was "D" or `E ", LOS shall not deteriorate to the next lower level. Policy 2: Traffic improvements.shall be made to arterials and collectors to provide LOS "C" or better, where feasible: Policy 9: Land'use decisions shall take into consideration potential traffic impacts. Policy '10: Nei-v development shall be required to pay a pro -rata share of needed traffic improvements. Policy 31: Land use decisions shall be based on potential'trafficunpacts. Traffic improvements identified in the Draft EIR would maintain a Level of Service (LOS) D on the roadways in the area. However, in some cases, mitigation measures require only a pro =rata contribution for these road improvements rnany of which are not included in the City's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).:Furthermore, the project would cause one significant unavoidable impact: The Old Redwood. Highway overpass across Highway 101 would deteriorate to unacceptable service levels (Impact C` 3). This impact - would occur with or without the project because of capacity constraints .on. the existing two lane freeway overpass. Thee Final EIR adequately exaimned the potential mitigation measures for 'this project and found that this impact cannot be mitigated to less than 'significant because the mitigation, measure, widening the overpass, cannot" be completed by the time the project would begin. M As outlined in the FEIR (Table 7), the Redwood'Technology Center Project contributes to less than half of the additional - traffic volume on the Old Redwood. Highway overpass. In accordance with the, Petaluma Environmental Review Guidelines and the CEQA guidelines, the City Council balanced the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the proposed. project, against .this. ,one' unavoidable environmental 'impact and by separate resolution adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which indicates that the project's benefits outweigh the unavoidable impact. Similar to the policies contained in the Community Character Chapter; Program 13..1 call ,for major employment and commercial centers. to incorporate into their developm_ ent plans, to ' the extent possible, pedestrian, °transit , and bicycle access, and .related facilities ,such as bicycle .racks /lockers, pathways, street lighting and furniture, and transit stops. The project site is currently served by two local bus routes and is accessible by local bicycle routes. Mitigation measures 'identified in the Traffic and Circulation section of the EIR would require improved pedestrian connections and facilities, as well as 'bicycle lockers and racks, and employee showers in accordance with recommendations contained in Appendix. A of the Bicycle Plan. In addition, a condition of approval and mitigation measure is recommended that would require that the proposed project; implement vehicle trip reduction programs. Community Health .and Safety Chapter Policy 7: The City shall regulate land" uses in, flood prone areas and should allow development in those areas only with appropriate mitigation. Policy 10 The City shall continue to require fees, standards and other measure to mitigate downstream impacts associated with new' development. Policy 12: The Gi'ty shall: require dynamic ground- motion analyses - and: responsive structural design for all new high- occupancy structures and structures whose continued 4 functioning in the event , of a disaster is critical, and continue to have plan checks for these buildings performed by a licensed structural engineer. The proposed project would be designed and constructed to minimize hazards from flooding to the fullest extent possible, as called for in the Flood Hazard section of the Community Health and Safety Chapter. Under Seismic Safety Policy 12, the City requires dynamic groun&motion analysis at the time of building permit /plan check review. Furthermore; noise and air quality impacts' generated by the project would not impede the General Plan objectives to minimize noise created by future development and maintain and improve:Petaluma's air quality. C7 • 5 ATTACHMENT 8 • DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Redwood Technology Center Corner,of Old Redwood Highway and North McDowell Boulevard APN 0076-411-7,9,11,18 and 19 Project File'No(s). GPA00001 and REZ00001 From the Planning Division: Plans submitted for final SPARC approval shall include a photometric plan for all exterior lighting; including the building, parking Jot, landscape and pedestrian lighting. Said plan shall include a detail of the types of fixtures to be installed for review and approval by the planning staff. The lighting. plan shall be reviewed in regards to the Site Plan and Architectural Review standards for lighting as well as the lighting standards outlined in the Bike Plan (Objective O; Policy 39, 40 and 41). 2. The Redwood Technology" Center Design Development Plan shall be revised to indicate -that bicycle amenities shall be provided in accordance with the City of • Petaluma Bicycle Plan and shall be subject to the standard Site Plan and Architectural Review process. 3. The applicant. shall be required to utilize, Best Management Practices regarding pesticide/herbicide use and fully: commit to Integrated Pest Management techniques for the protection: of pedestrian/bicyclists. The applicant shall be required when pesticide /herbicide use occurs that appropriate signed be installed warning pedestrians. 4. Any work or traffic control proposed within State right -of -way will require an encroachment 'permit. The applicant shall be required prior to issuance of building permits to obtain any necessary permit from Caltrans. 5. All mitigation meaIsures adopted in conjunction with the Final. Environmental Impact Report (Resolution . N.C.S.) for the Redwood Technology Center and as identified in the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) are herein incorporated by reference as conditions of project approval. 6. Upon approval by the City Council, the applicant shall pay the $35.0.0 Notice of Determination fee and applicable Fish & Game fees to the Planning Division. The check shall be made payable to the County Clerks. Planning staff will file the Notice of Determination with the County Clerks office within five (5) days after receiving Council approval. 7. Plans submitted for building permit" shall' include a plan sheet, which shall contain all conditions of approvalmitigation measures for review by the. Planning Division. STANDARD„ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 8. All trees shall be a minimum fifteen (15) gallon size, unless otherwise ;specified smaller (5 gallon) may be considered in areas not subject to, high pedestrian access or based on site ,specific and design; purposes and larger (24 "box sized) and installed to City planting and staking standards; trees may be required in highly visible areas; :all shrubs shall be five gallon size. All planted areas not improved with lawn or other groundcover material. shall be protected with aIwo- inch, .deep, organic mulch as a temporary measure until the ground cover is established. 9. All. plant material shall be served by a City approved automatic underground irrigation system. 10. All :planting shall be maintained. in good growing condition. Such maintenance "shall 'include, where appropriate, pruning, mowing, weeding, cleaning of debris and trash, fertilizing and'regular Vdtering. Whenever necessary, plantirg shall be • replaced. with other plant materials to insure continued compliance with applicable landscaping requirements. Required irrigation systems shall be fully maintained in sound operating , condition with "heads periodically cleaned .and replaced when missing to insure continued regular watering_ ' of landscape areas, and health and vitality of landscape materials. 11. A master landscape plan of the street frontage areas shall be provided, to staff approval, prior' to issuance of a building ;perrnit. The landscape plan :shall include street trees with planting design and species to staff approval. Landscape shall be installed to City standards prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. 12. Linear root barrier systems shall be utilized for trees near public streets or: walkways as needed, subject to staff review and approval. 13. All street- trees: and other plant materials within the public right -of =way shall be subject to inspection by the project landscape architect or designer prior to installation and by City staff prior to acceptance by the City, for conformance with the approved quality specifications 14. All tree stakes and ties shall be removed within one year following installation or as soon as trees are- able to stand erect without support. 15. All improvements and grading shall comply with the Sonoma 'County Water Agency's Design Criteria. 0 2 16. Public utility access and easement locations and widths shall be subject to a pproval by Bell, SCWA, all other applicable utility and service companies dCth City Engineer and shall be� shown on the plans. 17. Underground utilities such as water meters and sewer laterals shall be placed under paving' or as close as possible to private driveways, to avoid conflict with street tree "planting locations within °the, street right-of-way. Transformer vaults, fire 'hydrants and light standards shall be located in a manner which allows reasonable implementation of the approved,street treeplanting .plan for the project without compromising public safety. 18. All work within a public right -of- -way requires an excavation permit from the Community Development Department. 19. a. Construction activities shall comply with applicable. Zoning Ordinance and Municipal Code Performance Standards (noise, dust, odor, etc.). b. At no time shall future business ' activities exceed Performance Standards specified in the Uniform Building Code, Section 22 -301 of the Petaluma Zoning Ordinance and the 1987 General Plan. 20. A separate 'water meter shall be provided for landscape irrigation systems or as required by staff. • 21. In the event that archaeological remains are encountered during gradin g work shall be halted temporarily and a qualified -archaeologist shall be consulted for evaluation of the artifacts and to recommend future action. The local Indian community shall `also be notified and consulted in the event any archaeological remains are uncovered. 22. All above - ground meters and transformers shall be shown on plans and screened with landscaping materials subject to approval of the Planning Department. Any combination of earth_ berms, retaining walls and landscaping may be used to accomplish said screening. 23.A reproducible copy of the finalize PUD Development Plan and written PUD Standards incorporating all project conditions of approval, shall be submitted to thePlanning Department prior to issuance of development permits.. 24: The applicaint' shall' defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or any of its boards, commissions,. agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City, its boards, commission, agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, the approval of the project when such claim or action is brought within the time period provided. for in applicable State , an&or local statutes. The City shall promptly notify the applicants of any such claim, action; or proceeding. The City shall coordinate in the defense. • Nothing contained in this condition shall prohibit the City from participating in a 3 defense of any claim, action,- or proceeding if the City bears, its own ,alto_ rney's fees and costs, and the City defends the action in good faith. From the Fire Marshal: 25. Post address numbers on or near main entry door. Numbers to be a;rninimum of four inches high with contrasting background. Must be visible from street 26. Address ;required to be posted at driveway entrance. Reflectorized numbers are acceptable. 27. Any building or portion of a building used for "High Piled. Combustible Storage" shall conform to the requirements of Article 81 of the Uniform Fire. Code. A permit from the Fire Marshal is required for such storage. 28. Provide a KNOX BOX for fire department access. KNOX BOX shall contain keys or access codes to buildings. 29. The building/s shall be by an automatic fire sprinkler system, as required by the Uniform Fire Code and shall be provided with central station alarm monitoring, which will iotify - the "fire department in the event of water flow. In addition, a local alarm shall 'be provided the exterior and interior of the building. • 30. A permit is-required from the Fire Marshal for the installation or alteration of a fire sprinkler system, prior to the commencement of work. A minimum of two sets of plans with calculations is required to be submitted for review and approval. 31. Fire sprinkler systems installed in buildings of undetermined occupancy /use shall be designed and installed to provide a density of .33 gallons per minute per square foot, over a minimum design area- of 3,000'square feet. 32. Sprinklers shall be installed at overhangs and in concealed spaces per, NFPA 13, Chapter 4. 33. Contractors installing underground fire sprinkler mains shall obtain a permit and submit 2 sets of plans.for approval prior to commencing work. A hydrostatic test of 200 psi for two hours is ,required prior to backfill. All joints shall be visible at time of inspection. Underground installations shall be flushed to fire department satisfaction prior to connection to overhead. 34. Required access roads that are dead -ended shall terminate in an approved emergency vehicle turn around. • 0 35. No combustible. construction.above the foundation is allowed: unless an approved asphalt surfaced road is provided to within 150 feet of 'the furthest point of a • structure and the fire hydrants, have been tested, flushed and. are in service. 36. The minimum fire flow for this project is 2500 GPM at 20 pounds per sq. in. Proof that required fire flow is available shall be supplied to the Fire Marshal prior to construction. 37. All required fire lanes in. which no parking is allowed shall be designated by painting curbs fed. Where no curbs exist, signs approved by the Fire Marshal shall be installed. 38. The maximurn allowable grade for driveways and roadways is 12 %. Special allowances for grades up. to 15% may granted with the approval of the Fire Marshal and City Engineer. SACC -City Counci]\Memos\Redwood_ Tech_ 030303\redwoodtechdraftconditions .doc • 5 ., Mitigation Measures to,be included as Conditions of Approval 1. Mitigation.Measure POLICY -1 ; Operation of the proposed project shall include employee Transportation Demand.Management programs to encourage vehicle trip reduction 2. Mitigation. Measure CIR -1 c Each component of the project shall provide its fair share contribution ;(at the proportion 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 feet to approximately .600 "feet. The space needed to complete th s 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 Way to. delineate left turn pockets at the two intersections, . and prohibit left turn ,movements into and out of private driveways along the, street- segment. 3. Mitigation Measure CIR -2: Each component of 'the project. shall provide its fair share contribution.(at the proportion shown in Table 7 for the Old Redwood Highway /1.01 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. 4. Mitigation Measure CIR -3 : Each.component of the project shall provide its fair share contribution_(at the proportion shown in Table 7 for Old Redwood Highway Overpass) to the widening of the Old Redwood Highway freeway overpass to four lanes. This improvement would correspondingly provide two • westbound through lanes on Old Redwood Highway at the Old Redwood LE Highway /101 North Ramps intersection and two eastbound through lanes on Old Redwood Highway at the Old Redwood Highway /101 South Ramps intersection. 5. 1VIiti�ation Measure CIR -4': The intersection of North McDowell.Boulevard and Redwood Way shall be signalized with separate left turn phasing on North McDowell Boulevard. An additional southbound lane on North McDowell Boulevard shall be constructed between. Old Redwood Highway and - Redwood Way, becoming a right turn -lane into theproject at the North McDowell Boulevard/Redwood Way intersection. 6. MiM!ationlMeasure CIR -5 : The secondary access points to the project on North McDowell Boulevard shall be lim "ted to right turns in and out through on -site channelization and the installation of a raised median island on North McDowell Boulevard. 7. Mitigation Measure CIR -6 In. order to create abetter pedestrian scale and to encourage pedestrian trips, the proposed project shall,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 installationxequired`by Mitigation Measure CIR -1. These crossing improvements shall consist of crosswalk striping; apedestrian traffic signal phase as part of the. traffic signal. installation and curb bulb- extensions at the corners of the intersection.: c: A new transit shelter on the east side of North McDowell Boulevard. 8. ' Mitigation Measure CIR -7 :.Qn -site pedestrian connections shall be improved by providing safe pedestrian crosswalks at central, convenient locations so as to .allow direct pedestrian access. between and among all three parcels: - Pedestrian amenities, such as street furniture; landscaping and fountains shall be included in detailed site plans forpedestrian circulation routes.. Mitigation Measure CIR -8a Each building over . 1.0,000 square feet I in ;size shall include employee.showers afa,proportion detailed in Appendix A of the City's Bicycle Plan. 0 10. Mitigation. Measure C1R -8b :, Each parcel shall contain bicycle lockers and racks in the proportions estabfished,in Sections 20 -301 and 20 =401 of Appendix A of the City Bicycle Plan. 11. Mitigation. Measure SERV4 a : The use of potable water- for irrigation shall be minimized. The developer shall follow the Sonoma County Low Water Use Landscaping Guidelines and/or the SCWA's handbook for the design of water conserving landscaping. 12. Mitigation Measure SERV -1`b The proposed project sha11 utilize low -flow toilets (as required by the Uniform Plumbing Code) and flow - reducing aerators on sinks. 13. Mitigation Measure VISUAL -1 : The landscaping plan shall include natural vegetation and other landscaping features. along the.southerri sides of Building A2 and Buildings Rl and B2 that attractive landscaped'views framing the buildings from Highway.101 and d'oes�not create a separation-on Parcel B between the breezeway and the pedestrian trail. • 14. Mitigation Measure,B10 -1 : Wetlands shall be created on -site and off -site at an amount at least. equal in acreage to the wetlands that would be filled by the project. The detailed on -site and off -site mitigation plans shall be implemented following review and approval by the City, the US Army Corps of Engineers and San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control,Board. Any grading and construction permits shal11,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. 15. Mitigation' Measure B10 -2;a: Detailed surveys shall be conducted by a qualified botanist in the spring, and early 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 shall be conducted according to the survey guidelines of the CDFG. 16. Mitigation Measure BI0 -2b If any special- status plant species are encountered, appropriate mitigation plans shall be prepared and implemented in consultation with the CDFG and USFWS depending on the status of the species. This may c• , include modifications to the extent of proposed grading to avoid identified • populations or alteration of surface hydrology, and possibly salvage and re- establishment o f plant populations at alternative locations, where technically .feasible. 17. Mitigation Measure HYDRO -1 : The Applicant shall prepare and' mplement a flood management plan ;for the proposed project site that specifies: Procedures to evacuate tenants and customers from the complex should floodingIamper egress._ ® Procedures to evacuate vehicles from parking areas that could experience flood depths of six inches or greater. ® Procedures to prevent access to flooded parking areas and access roads. o The property management personnel (by position and name) that are responsible for maintaining- and implementing the flood management plan. ® The plan , shail be submitted to City for review and approval prior to occupancy of any structure: 18. Mitigation M'easureHYDRO -2 : During -the construction period, the contractor shall. comply with Joc al, state and Federal regulations pursuant to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System regulations for General Construction Activities. 1 . Mtiga tion Measure HYDRO -3a Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be implemented such as in -line oil and grease traps, sediment traps, good house keeping or Other measures as described in Industrial/Commercial Best Management Practice Handbooks and Staff Recommendations for New and Redevelopment Control's for Storm Water Programs. 20. MitiLyation. Measure - HYDRO -3b ;Storm drain inlets shall be stenciled and signs shall be displayed or notices provided to project tenants and their clients requesting that waste or debris not be discharged'into the storm .drain system. 21. Mitigation Measure HYDRO -4a :. All utilities -on Parcel A.and Parcel B shall be floodproofed. 22'. , Miti'j `ation Measure HYDRO -4b Development on Parcel C shall incorporate the following requirements: A ♦ Elevate construction so that the finished floor elevation of all buildings is • two. feet above ,the 1.00 Y ear flood level. ♦ Floodproof all utilities. ♦ Meet the "zero net fill requirement." ♦ Provide technical analysis to demonstrate that proposed grading at the site. will not increase the flow rate or flood elevations upstream or downstream of the project site. 23. Mitigation Measure NOISE -1 a : Constriction truck traffic shall use the routes which result in the least noise impact for'existing developed residential receptors. Accessing the site from Highway 101 and Old Redwood Highway is recommended whenever possible. 24. Mitigation Measure NOISE -lb During noisy phases (e.g., use of heavy impact equipment), occupants of buildings located within 100 feet of active construction areas shall be- provided written notification so they can prepare for these noisy periods. • 25. Mitigation Measure NOISE -1e The construction schedule shall be posted at public locations -iii the project area so office occupants can prepare for any noisy construction periods. 26. Mitigation - Measiire AIIt -1 -� The Bay Area Air Quality Management District has promulgated the following set of ;guidelines to control impacts from fugitive dust (PM10) that results from normal construction activities. Incorporation of these control measures. would mitigate construction related PM10'impacts: ♦ Water all active construction areas at least twice daily and more often during windy periods. Active areas adjacent to residences shall be kept damp at all times. ♦ Cover all hauling trucks 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. o 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. o Hydroseed 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- toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles. ® Limit traffic speeds on any unpaved roads to 15 mph. ® Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. Suspend any activities that, cause visible dust plumes, which cannot,be controlled'.bywatering. ) 27. Mitigation Measure AIR -2a Building design'techniques thatreduce area- source emissions shall be implemented. ,Measures shall include: Orienting buildings and include landscaping. (e.g., shade trees) to maximize natural cooling: o 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. • 28. Mitigation Measure AIR -2b Measures to reduce automobile trips shall be .implemented, thus reducing mobile source emissions. Measures shall include: Developing, a rideshare program that would be implemented by all future employers. # Constructing transit facilities such as bus turnouts.and shelters'tliat are easily pedestrian- accessible to all uses. Such facilities would have clearly legible transit routes and schedules posted. ® Consulting with transit providers during- design and review.to facilitate transit service to the site. s Providing onsite or nearby'retail services for future employees at the site. Providing onsite or nearby childcare facilities within walking distance of the site. e Providing preferential parking to carpools and vanpools for office buildings. e Providing protected, secure, and convenient bicycle parking for employees at all uses within the prof ect. ® Providing shower -and locker facility t employees that bicycle or walk. • g ih y for site y ® Providing ,short =term bicycle, parking for retail customers and other non - commute trips that would: be more convenient than, auto parking. m Providing safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle access to all uses on the site. 29. Mitigation Measure AIR-22c Prior to the.issuance of building permits, the project sponsor shall submit an air quality analysis prepared by a professional air quality analyst, which, demonstrates that nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from direct and indirect project sources will, not exceed ,Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) significance thresholds in effect at the time the study is prepared. •