The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutStaff Report 4.A 02/27/2012 .LtT A Itevw#4A w o 1858 • DATE: February 27,,2012 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council through City Manager FROM: Geoff Bradley, Planning Manager SUBJECT: Resolution Certifying a Final Environmental Impact Report; Resolution Making Findings and Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Proposed Deer Creek Village Project, located at North McDowell and Rainier Avenue; APNs 007-380-005 and 007-380-027 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolutions for the Deer Creek Village Project: I. Resolution Certifying a Final Environmental Impact Report; and 2. Resolution Making Findings and Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations. It is also recommended that the City Council provide comments on the Site Plan and Architectural Review to be forwarded to the Planning Commission during future deliberation. BACKGROUND -The,Deer Creek Village EIR has been prepared as a tiered EIR which evaluates specific project- level impacts which were not fully evaluated in the General Plan EIR. As noted in the CEQA findings,for General Plan 2025 adoption, Resolution 2008-084 N.C.S., the General Plan EIR was intended to provide cumulative analysis that would be used by future projects consistent with the General Plan, exactly as has been done in this EIR. The Planning Commission considered the Final EIR for the project and began Site Plan and Architectural Review at noticed public hearing on January 10, 2012. The Planning Commission voted 5-1 to approve a resolution finding the Final EIR inadequate based on its "failure to reconsider for CEQA purposes whether the Rainier Interchange is a reasonably foreseeable future improvement" and "failure to study traffic impacts in the cumulative scenario with Rainier Crosstown Connector/Undercrossing only and no Rainier Interchange." Agenda Review: City Attorney Finance Director City Manager---�� The General Plan 2025 build-out circulation system includes both the Rainier Avenue Interchange and the Rainier Avenue Crosstown Connector/Undercrossing as long range circulation improvements. Therefore, the traffic assumptions in the Draft EIR include these improvements in the cumulative scenario. This assumption is the same as for other recent project level environmental documents that have been approvedby the City. The Commission expressed concern that the Rainier Interchange is not a reasonably foreseeable future improvement; based in part on AB xl 26, which has dissolved:redevelopment agencies. However,the Rainier Interchange is included in the General Plan 2025, the Council has provided continued direction by resolution to pursue the.Interchange'project, collection of development impact fees for identified traffic improvements which include the Rainier Interchange as a major component of infrastructure costs is ongoing, and redevelopment funding was committed for the Rainier'Crosstown Connector/Interchange project prior to the dissolution of the Petaluma Community Development Commission (PCDC) on February 1,2012. A total of$8,379,249 in Rainier funding is included on the Enforceable Obligations Payment Schedule adopted on February 6, 2012.by the City as successor agency to-the PCDC. These funds have been committed in contractual obligations to third parties, including`envitonmental and design consultants and the Sonoma County Transportation'Agency(SCTA). These commitments will not be:confirmed until after the establishment of an oversight board and approval of the obligations by that board, which will not happen until after May 1, 2012, pursuant to AB xl 26. At this.,point it would be pure speculation to assume that the funding will not be confirmed. CEQA does not require speculation or analysis of future uncertain events. The second related finding contained in the resolution approved by the Planning Commission found the Final EIR inadequate because the traffic analysis did not study a cumulative scenario with the Rainier Crosstown Connector/Undercrossing but without;the accompanying Rainier Interchange. Because the EIR tiers from the General Plan 2025 EIR and because the proposed project is within the General Plan planning parameters for this site, the project level analysis relies on the General Plan cumulative assumptions regarding traffic improvements, which include:both the Rainier Interchange and Crosstown Connector, as analyzed above. This approach is consistent with CEQA. Topical`R'esponse 7 in the:Final EIR also discusses the history and status of the Avenue Interchange and Crosstown Connector. In addition to the subject of Rainier traffic improvements, the Planning Commission's deliberations focused on several issues, including: • Flooding o Hydrology.and'Drainage • Connectivity'df Lynch Creek Way • Traffic Impacts on local streets • 2 • The project site is not located in the flood zone as illustrated on the adopted FEMA panels. • Additionally, the project site is not located in the flood zone as illustrated on the draft FEMA panels currently being processed for an update of the City's FEMA mapping. Photographs taken from a helicopter during the December 31, 2005 New Year's Eve flooding event demonstrate that the subject parcel did not flood at the height of that event. Based on available professional and technical documentation, it has been clearly demonstrated that the subject property is not located in the flood zone and does not have a history of flooding. Hydrology and drainage were also discussed at length at the Planning Commission hearing on the Final EIR. As outlined in the Initial Study, initial hydrology analysis concluded that if on- site dentention was required of the project, it could slow down the on-site peak and actually increase the peak flow rate to the Petaluma River. Consistent with these findings, on-site dentention is not being proposed. However, as noted by the City Engineer on this topic and consistent with the City's standard practice, detailed storm water runoff calculations based on final construction level drawings will be required for review by the City and Sonoma County Water Agency prior to approval of final drawings. Should the detailed storm water calculations at that time indicate that onsite detention`is necessary,then applicable drainage systems will be designed for the site and required through the building permit process. On-site detention could be accommodated without significant modification to site design. The extension of Lynch Creek Way as it correlates to General Plan policy 2-P-92 for the North McDowell Boulevard subarea was discussed by Commissioners. The General Plan policy encourages greater accessibility to the Petaluma River and neighboring areas, while enhancing ecology and providing native planting through road extensions, bikeways, and trails. The Policy specifically envisions "[e]xtending Lynch Creek Way northwest through new developments, connecting with the Rainier Avenue extension." Due to the adopted plan line for the Rainier Interchange and Crosstown Connector and anticipated traffic volumes as a result of those improvements, Lynch Creek cannot be designed to extend through to Rainier in a grid like pattern, because an additional direct intersection of Lynch Creek Way with the Rainier Avenue extension would create safety issues and impede traffic circulation on Rainier Avenue. If a Lynch Creek Way extension were designed to connect with the main project access from Rainier, closer to the intersection with McDowell, the configuration would essentially cut off a portion of the property closest to the freeway, where it is more difficult to locate suitable uses. Because of these challenges and in keeping with the intent of the policy to provide connectivity, the project includes a pathway that connects Lynch Creek Way and the creek buffer pathway for pedestrian and bicycle circulation and vehicle access through the primary vehicular route in front of the major tenant spaces, over the southern bridge and connecting with-the Rainier Avenue access As commenters noted at the Planning Commission hearing, the present plan does not create a parallel street grid system through the development that would serve as a.traffic alternative to use of North McDowell along the project frontage. However, it is not clear that this type of alternative street grid is required by Policy 2-P-92, and given the nature of the development as a shopping center, may be an inappropriate location for cut-through traffic. There were several concerns expressed that the EIR does not specifically address traffic impacts to local streets. This issue was discussed in Topical Response 9: Traffic Analysis of Additional Local Streets in the Final EIR. Additionally, at the Planning Commission hearing the consulting 3 traffic engineer for the project.clarified that additional traffic analysis on local streets such as Rushmore,Avenue and Prince Albert Street was not warranted because there was no impact at the correlating collector or arterial street intersection. If there is not a significant impact at the collector or arterial then as the traffic spreads out farther from the project and disperses, the impact at the next level of local streets that feed into that collector or arterial would also be less than significant. Impacts on local streets are measured by traffic volume, street capacity and operational characteristics. Even if traffic increases on a local street, that is not necessarily a CEQA traffic impact, absent deterioration in the street's operating functions or safety or hazard effects. DISCUSSION More than sixty comments were received during the 45-day public comment period for the Draft ER. Copies of all written comments and a record of oral comments made at the Planning Commission and City Council meetings are contained Within the Final EIR, with responses to all comments and 15 topical responses on issues that were repeated in multiple comments. To provide additional information, an updated noise analysis was completed. An updated site visit was also performed to verify that there had been no change in conditions since the previous biology analysis was conducted. These documents are included in the appendices of the FEIR. No new impacts which required recirculation were identified as part of the responses to comments. See Topical Response 3, Recirculation of the FEIR, for additional detail. Impacts that are Significant and Unavoidable The EIR identified areas where the proposed project would cause significant environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant impact. These significant unavoidable impacts relate to air quality/greenhouse gas emissions, traffic and transportation, and cumulative traffic/rail noise at General Plan buildout. Several of the significant unavoidable impacts identified in the EIR are cumulative impacts identified in the General Plan 2025. Even though a statement of overriding considerations was adopted for these impacts when the General Plan was adopted, court decisions interpreting CEQA require a separate statement of overriding considerations based on a balancing of the specific impacts and benefits of this project prior to project approval. Because the City's local Environmental Review Guidelines provide that only the City Council, can certify an ER, staff believes that the Council is also the appropriate'body to ,adopt a statement of overriding considerations, if it determines that the benefits of the project outweigh its significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. Certification of the, EIR and adoption of a statement of overriding considerations are both required before the Planning Commission can approve design and architectural review, Noise Impact Noise-3 outlines the evaluation of the projects contribution to cumulative effects and relies on the evaluation,of noise effects in the EIR for General Plan.2025, which determined that at General Plan buildout, significant and unavoidable impacts would result from traffic-related noise and future rail service from total buildout citywide. The contribution of a project on this 4 site was estimated by its existing density and zoning in the General Plan and almost all projects on the site would be expected to contribute in a similar fashion. No feasible mitigation measures were identified that would reduce the proposed project's contribution to this cumulative city- wide impact to less than considerable, and thus this significant and unavoidable impact remains applicable to the proposed project. Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Emissions An air quality impact was identified related to construction activities associated with the project which would result in dust and equipment exhaust emissions that could at times, affect adjacent residential uses including the single-family residential homes to the northeast/east of McDowell Boulevard and/or the Petaluma Valley Hospital to the east on Professional Drive, and could contribute to deterioration of local air quality. Based on the analysis, during grading and the first year of construction, average daily emissions would exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) thresholds. It should be noted that the Alameda Superior Court case recently invalidated the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines because BAAQMD did not itself do a CEQA evaluation of the Guidelines before their adoption. The gist of the challenge by the Building Industry Association was that the thresholds would hinder development within 1,000 feet of major transportation corridors and push new development away from infill sites and further from the core of the Bay Area, contrary to the goal and intent of other laws, such as SB 375 and AB 32, both intended to promote infill development to mitigate air quality impacts from automobile use. However, because the court's decision did not challenge or invalidate the scientific underpinnings of BAAQMD's work, and because this project is not located in the core of the Bay Area or near major stationary point sources of air pollution, the City has decided to continue use of the adopted thresholds in its evaluation of the project's air quality and greenhouse gas impacts. A mitigation measure outlining ways in which the project could reduce air pollutant emissions from grading and construction impact is discussed in the DEIR. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would reduce dust of PKo emissions to a less-than-significant level. However NO„ emissions during grading would remain above the BAAQMD threshold and therefore the impact remains significant and unavoidable, although confined to the construction period. An additional air quality impact related to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions was identified in,the ER. Based on analysis, the project would cause an increase in GHG emissions of 8,707 metric tons of CO2e annually, which exceeds the 2010 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines "bright line" threshold:of1,l00 metric tons per year. Therefore the significance is evaluated by assessing the GHG emissions of 13.5 metric tons per year of CO2e per capita, which exceeds the BAAQMD significance threshold of 4.6 metric tons per capita. Mitigation Measure AQ-4 outlines measures to reduce air pollutant emissions both from vehicle trips and area sources. Although implementation of the measures would reduce per capita CO2e emissions to 13.0 metric tons per year, it remains above the BAAQMD per capita significance threshold of 4.6 and therefore the impact remains significant and unavoidable. 5 Greenhouse gas emissions are by nature cumulative impacts. The resulting impact determined by this DEIR is the same level of significance as determined in the General Plan EIR for greenhouse gas emissions, but resulted from using the more specific BAAQMD 2010 CEQA Guidelines methodology. The conclusion is that the project does make a considerable contribution (in CEQA terminology) to the significant and unavoidable impact determined to occur with General Plan buildout. Traffic The significant.traffic impacts identified in the EIR are discussed by intersection to account for the fact that an impact may occur over more than one time horizon. The scenarios evaluated include existing, existing plus project, existing plus project plus other projects approved but not yet constructed (near-term growth), and the cumulative scenario of complete General Plan buildout. • East Washington/North McDowell The intersection operations at East Washington Street and North McDowell Boulevard were found to exceed the threshold of significance under the existing plus project and existing plus pipeline plus project scenarios. This impact goes away in the cumulative scenario because of other traffic improvements envisioned in the General Plan which will change traffic circulation at this intersection. Vehicle queuing in the southbound right turn lane also was found to exceed thresholds of significance under the existing plus project, existing plus pipeline plus project, and cumulative scenarios. Although construction 'of additional lane storage length would reduce the project's contribution to significant impacts, additional right-of-way is not available for correction because of the built-out neighborhood along North McDowell. Corona/North McDowell Intersection operations at Corona Road and North McDowell Boulevard under existing plus pipeline plus project and cumulative conditions result in significant and unavoidable impacts. Construction of additional travel lanes at this intersection was determined by the Council in the General Plan process to conflict with General Plan policy to avoid wider, more automobile- oriented intersections in favor of more pedestrian, bicycle, and transit-friendly designs. A statement of overriding considerations was adopted by the City for this intersection for the cumulative'condition as part of the General Plan EIR certification. Impacts to this intersection remain significant and unavoidable. Corona/Petaluma Boulevard North Intersection operations at Corona Road and Petaluma Boulevard North under existing plus pipeline plus project conditions exceed thresholds of significance and result in a significant and unavoidable impact. This impact goes away in the cumulative scenario, again because of changed`traffic circulation resulting from General Plan infrastructure improvements. Highway 101 The proposed project is expected to increase traffic volumes on Highway 101 segments (Pepper Road to Old Redwood Highway and from East Washington Street to Lakeville Highway). These 6 segments are expected to operate at LOS F without the project, but traffic volumes from the project are anticipated to increase the segment's theoretical capacity by more than one percent. No feasible mitigation was.identified to reduce the impact to less-than-significant and therefore the impact remains significant and unavoidable. These same segments on Northbound U.S. 101 will continue to operate at LOS F and traffic volumes from the project will contribute to the capacity of the facility. No feasible mitigation measures were identified and therefore the impact would be significant unavoidable under cumulative conditions. Rainier/North McDowell Intersection operations at Rainier Avenue and North McDowell Boulevard are anticipated to exceed thresholds of significance under cumulative condition, resulting in a significant LOS impact. No feasible mitigation was identified. Impacts to this intersection remain significant and unavoidable. Rainier/Project Access Intersection operations at Rainier Avenue and the project access would result in delay to right- turn egress movements exiting the proposed project in the cumulative scenario; however no vehicle delays on Rainier Avenue itself are anticipated. The construction of the Rainier Avenue cross-town connector and U.S. 101 and Rainier Avenue Interchange will limit access along the project's north frontage and a traffic signal is not feasible in this location due to spacing with the intersection of Rainier/North McDowell and traffic entering and exiting the freeway. Access shall be limited to right-turn`in and right-turn out when Rainier is extended (mitigation measure Traffic-8b): Despite this mitigation, impacts to the project access intersection remain significant and unavoidable. Statement of Overriding Considerations CEQA Section 15091 requires public agencies to make one or more written findings for/each of the significant;environmental effects identified in an EIR prior to project approval. The findings must be supported by substantial evidence in the record and the agency must present a beef' explanation of the rationale for each finding. Where potential environmental impacts have been identified as significant and unavoidable, CEQA requires decision-makers to balance the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project against the unavoidable project-related environmental effects; when determining whether or not to approve the project. If the specific economic,; legal, social, technological or other benefits of the proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects; then'those environmental effects may be considered "acceptable". Because the City's local Environmental Review Guidelines provide that only the City Council can certify an EIR, staff believes that the Council is also the appropriate deciding,body to adopt a written'statement of/overriding considerations, if it determines that the benefits of the project outweigh the project's significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. Certification of the EIR and adoption of a statement of overriding considerations are both required before the Planning Commission can approve site design and architectural review (SPAR), The project 7 does not require legislative enactments (map, rezoning, general plan amendment) and SPAR, as the only required entitlement, would not come before the City Council absent an appeal. Therefore, staff recommends that the Council also approve the attached Statement of Overriding Considerations at this time. Public Comments Public comment letters received to date are included in Attachment 6. A letter dated February 17, 2012 and received at the City on February 21, 2012 from Shute Mihaly on behalf of the Petaluma Neighborhood Association relates primarily to the Rainier interchange issues discussed in the staff report. A copy of this letter has been circulated to the City Council and will be posted as late mail for this item on the city's website. FINANCIAL IMPACTS This is a cost recovery project; the applicant will pay for the cost of processing the application. The project will also pay all City development impact fees and other fees including the public art fee and the commercial linkage fee which mitigates a commercial project's impact on local housing. The resulting annual net fiscal surplus to the General Fund as a result of this project is anticipated to be between $681,000, based on long term projections in the FEIA, and $373,077 based on the shorter term 2015 sales tax estimate in the EPS Study. Revenues from Development Impact Fees are expected to total approximately$9,200,000. ATTACHMENTS I. Draft Resolution Certifying a Final Impact Report 2. Draft Resolution Making Findings and Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations 3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2012-01 4. Planning Commission Staff Report 5. FEIR and Mitigation Monitoring Report (hand delivered separately) 6. Public comments Letters 7. PBAC Comments, dated June 2010 8. Design Review Plan Sets, 11X17 8 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE DEER CREEK VILLAGE PROJECT, PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT WHEREAS, the Notice ofPreparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Deer Creek Village project("the Project")`was mailed to all responsible and affected agencies on March 5, 2010, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.4 and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines; ("CEQA Guidelines") Section 15082; and, WHEREAS,,a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") was prepared for the Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the CEQA Guidelines and the City of Petaluma.Environmental Review Guidelines and circulated for public review between March 3, 2011 and April 18, 2011, after public notice inviting comments on the Draft EIR given in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15087; and, WHEREAS, the Draft EIR relies on the EIR for the City of Petaluma General Plan 2025, certified by City Council Resolution 2008-058 N.C.S. on April 7, 2008, for information and analysis relating to certain cumulative impacts and incorporates said analysis and conclusions to the extent applicable, as identified in the Draft EIR; and, WHEREAS, the City has,cornmitted to implementing the mitigation measures contained in the Implementation Plan and Mitigation Monitoring Program adopted by the City as Exhibit B to Resolution 2008-084 N.C.S., Resolution of the City Council of the City of Petaluma Making Findings of Fact, Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations and Adopting an Implementation and Mitigation Monitoring Program in Support of the General Plan 2025, Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; and, WHEREAS, the City distributed copies of the Draft EIR in conformance with CEQA to the public agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the project and to other interested persons and agencies and sought the comments of such persons and agencies; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 22, 2011 to consider the Draft EIR; and, WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on April 18, 2011 to consider the Draft EIR; and, WHEREAS,responses to written and oral comments received the Draft EIR have been prepared in the form of a Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project ("Final EIR"); and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a noticed public meeting on January 10, 2012, at which-time it considered the Final EIR and accepted public-testimony; and, WHEREAS, the City Council held a noticed public meeting on February 27, 2012, at which tiine'it considered the Final ER and accepted public testimony; and, WHEREAS, certain Project impacts will remain significant and unavoidable, even after the application of all feasible Project mitigation measures to lessen those impacts, including: a) contribution to the cumulative city-wide traffic noise impacts; b) NOx emissions during grading; c) Greenhouse gas emissions consistent.with the level of emissions found acceptable by the City at the time of adoption of the General Plan; d) increased-traffic,resulting in intersection LOS impacts at Corona and McDowell,.Corona and Petaluma Boulevard North, McDowell and East Washington, McDowell and Rainier; e) increased traffic resulting in queuing impacts at McDowell and East Washington and 0 continued LOS,F operations on Highway 101 between Pepper Road and Old Redwood and East Washington and Lakeville. WHEREAS, the Project is not located on a site listed on any Hazardous Waste Site List compiled by the State pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 1509I(d), a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared and presented with the Final EIR to ensure that all mitigation measures relied on to reduce environmental impacts of the Project are fully implemented; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby certifies the Final Environmental Impact Report and finds as follows: 1. The Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Petaluma Environmental Review Guidelines; 2. The Final Environmental Impact Report was presented to the City Council which reviewed and considered it prior to making a decision on the Project. 3. The Final Environmental Impact Report reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis of the potential for environmental impacts of the Project Ifs ATTACHMENT 2 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE DEER CREEK VILLAGE PROJECT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT WHEREAS, the Notice of Preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Deer Creek Village project ("the.Project") was mailed to all responsible and affected agencies on March 5, 2010, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.4 and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, ("CEQA Guidelines") Section 15082; and, WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft ER") was prepared for the Project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the CEQA Guidelines and the City of Petaluma Environmental Review Guidelines and circulated for public review between March 3, 2011 and April 18, 2011, after public notice inviting comments on the Draft EIR given in compliance with CEQA Guidelines.Section 15087; and, WHEREAS, the Draft EIR relies on the EIR for the City of Petaluma General Plan 2025, certified by City Council Resolution 2008-058 N.C.S. on April 7; 2008, for information and analysis relating to certain cumulative impacts and incorporates said analysis and conclusions to the extent applicable, as identified in the Draft EIR; and, WHEREAS, the City has committed to implementing the mitigation measures contained in the Implementation Plan and Mitigation Monitoring Program adopted by the City as Exhibit B to Resolution 2008-084 N.C.S., Resolution of the City Council of the City of Petaluma Making Findings of Fact, Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations and Adopting an Implementation and Mitigation Monitoring Program in Support of the General Plan 2025, Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; and, WHEREAS, the Citytdistributed copies of the Draft,EIR-in conformance with CEQA to the public agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the project and to other interested persons and agencies and sought the comments of such persons and agencies; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 22, 2011 to • consider the Draft EIR; and, WHEREAS, the•City Council held a public hearing on April 18, 2011 to consider the Draft EIR; and, WHEREAS, responses to written and oral comments received the Draft EIR have been prepared in the form;of a Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project ("Final EIR"); and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a. noticed public meeting on January 10, 2012, at which titre itconsidered the Final EIR and accepted public testimony; and, WHEREAS, the City Council held a noticed public meeting on February 27, 2012, at which time it considered the Final EIR and accepted public testimony; and, WHEREAS, certain Project impacts will remain significant and unavoidable, even after the application of all feasible Project mitigation measures to lessen those impacts, including: a) contribution to the cumulative city-wide traffic noise impacts; b) NOx emissions during grading; c) Greenhouse gas emissions consistent with the level of emissions found acceptable by the City at the time of adoption of the General Plan; d) increased traffic resulting in intersection LOS impacts at Corona and McDowell,.Corona and Petaluma Boulevard North, McDowell and East Washington, McDowell and Rainier; e) increased traffic resulting in queuing impacts at McDowell and East.Washington and 0 continued LOS F operations on Highway 101 between Pepper Road and Old Redwood and East Washington and Lakeville. WHEREAS, Public Resources Code Section 21081(6) requires that the City Council find that specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations outweigh any significant environmental effects of the Project which cannot be fully mitigated; and WHEREAS, a Statement of Overriding Considerations consisting of the City's findings and determination regarding the Project's significant and unavoidable effects is contained in Exhibit C, which is incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared, as set forth in Exhibit D, which is incorporated herein by reference, to ensure that all mitigation measures relied on in the findings are fully implemented; and WHEREAS, some mitigation measures identified in Exhibit A may require action by, or cooperation from, other agencies. Similarly, mitigation measures requiring the applicant to contribute toward improvements planned by other agencies will require the relevant agencies to receive the funds and spend them appropriately. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The above Recitals are true and correct and adopted as findings of the City Council. 2. As required by CEQA and based on substantial evidence in the .record, the City Council adopts the findings regarding significant effects of the project and mitigation contained in the attached Exhibit A, which is incorporated herein by reference. 3. As required by CEQA and based on substantial evidence in the record, the City Council adopts the findings regarding alternatives to the Project contained in the attached Exhibit B, which is incorporated herein by reference. 4. As required by CEQA and based on substantial evidence in the record, the City Council adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding significant and unavoidable effects of the Project contained in the attached Exhibit C, which is incorporated herein by reference. 9- - 0 5. The City Council hereby approves and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program set forth in the attached.Exhibit D, which is incorporated herein by reference, to ensure that all mitigation measures relied on in the findings are fully implemented. Compliance with the MMRP shall be a condition of any Project approval. 6. The City Council hereby finds that for each identified mitigation measure that requires the cooperation or action of another agency, adoption and implementation of each such mitigation measure is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the public agency identified, and the measures can and should be adopted and/or implemented'by said agency. 7. The custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings for the Project is the City of Petaluma, Planning Division, Petaluma City Hall, 11 English Street, Petaluma, CA 94952. 8. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption and the City Clerk is directed to file a Notice of Determination pursuant to CEQA. EXHIBIT A FINDINGS CONCERNING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines_section 15091, the City Council hereby makes the following findings with respect to the potential for significant environmental impacts of the Deer Creek Village project ("the Project") and means for mitigating those impacts. Many of the impacts and mitigation measures in the following findings are summarized rather then set forth in full. The text of the Draft and Final EIRs should be consulted for a complete description of the impacts and mitigations. Impact GEO-1: The site would: be subject to strong to very strong shaking during a large earthquake event on one of the nearby faults. Additionally, the site has a potential for soil liquefaction and seismically induced ground settlement: Mitigation GEO-la: All construction activities shall meet the California Building Code regulations for seismic safety. Mitigation GEO-lb: A Final Soils Investigation and Geotechnical Report prepared by a registered professional civil engineer shall be submitted for review and approval of the City Engineer and Chief Building Official and shall address site-specific soil conditions and include recommendations for site preparation and grading, foundation and soil engineering design, pavement design, utilities, roads, bridgesrand structures. Mitigation GEO.1c: The applicant shall submit a.detailed schedule for field inspection of work in progress to ensure that all applicable codes, conditions and mitigation measures are being properly implemented through construction of the project. Mitigation GEO-ld: The project applicant shall implement the recommendations in the Kleinfelder investigation related to site preparation, foundation support, site seismic characterization, site preparation and grading, foundations, concrete slabs-on-grade, retaining walls, and surface and subsurfacedrainage control. Finding: Changes or alteration have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified.in the EIR. Impact GEO-2: Near surface soil is highly expansive and without proper soil conditioning, site preparation, subsurface drainage, and foundation design, the structures and infrastructure at the project site could sustain substantial damage. -Mitigation GEO2a: The design of all earthwork, cuts and fills, drainage, pavements, utilities, foundations and structural 'components shall conform with the specifications and criteria contained in the geotechnical report, as approved by the City Engineer. The geotechnical engineer shall sign the improvement plans and certify the design as conforming to the specifications. The geotechnical engineer shall also inspect the construction work and shall. certify to the City, that the improvements have been constructed in accordance with the geotechnical specifications. Mitigation GEO-2b: Foundation and structural design for buildings shall conform to the requirements of the California Building Code, as well as state and local laws/ordinances. Mitigation GEO-2c: The applicant shall comply with all recommendations provided by Treadwell & Rollo, Environmental and Geotechnical Consultants, in its letter report dated June 20, 2005, Draft EIR Technical Appendix E-1. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in; or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Impact GEO-3: Grading has the potential to cause water and erosion. Mitigation GEO-3a: All earthwork, grading, trenching, backfilling and compaction operations shall be conducted in accordance with the City of Petaluma's Subdivision Ordinance, Title 20, chapter 20-04 of the Petaluma Municipal Code; and Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance (Title 17, Chapter 17.31 of the.Petaluma Municipal Code. Mitigation GEO-3b: The applicant shall submit an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan prepared by a registered professional engineer as an integral part of the grading plan. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Impact GEO-4: The project has the:potential to expose people or structures to certain geological hazards including ground shaking and,expansive soils. Mitigation GEO-4: Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GEO-3b. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Impact AQ-1: Forseeable:construction activities during grading, the first year of construction would create average daily emissions that exceed the BAAQMD thresholds. Mitigation AQ-1: The project,sponsor shall require that practices be implemented to reduce air quality impacts during,grading and construction as contained in the Draft EIR pages IV.0-21 and as revised,by the Final EIR. Finding: Additional mitigation measures described in the Final EIR further reduce dust and • PM10 emissions, which were already reduced to a less than significant level, but NOx emissions would remain above the BAAQMD thresholds, and therefore this impact remains significant and unavoidable. Impact AQ-4: The project's greenhouse gas emissions are,considered to make a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant impact. Mitigation AQ-4: The applicant shall reduce air pollutant emissions from both vehicle trips and area sources by implementing the measures outlined in the Draft EIR pages IV.0-26 and IV.0-27 and as revised by the Final EIR. Finding: Despite reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from the identified mitigation measures, this impact remains significant and.unavoidable. Impact HYDRO-1: Storm,water runoff from developed areas could carry potential non-point source, pollutants into surface water where, without mitigation, they could cause a small but cumulative degradation of water quality. Mitigation HYDRO-1 a: The project applicant shall prepare and submit an erosion control plan. Mitigation HYDRO—lb: In accordance with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations, the applicant shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for implementation throughout project construction to control erosion on the project site and to provide guidelines for the storage, use and clean-up of fuels and hazardous materials. Mitigation HYDRO-lc: The.project shall comply with the City of Petaluma Phase II Storm Water Management Plan including attachment four post construction requirements. Mitigation HYDRO-ld: The'stomi drain system design shall be reviewed and approved by the Sonoma'County Water Agency. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Impact 1310-1: The project has the potential to impact special status species. Mitigation BIO-la: Site grading shall be conducted in accordance with the City's Storm Water/Grading,and Erosion'Control Ordinance. Mitigation BIO-1b: All construction activities in and immediately adjacent to trees or shrubs providing potential nesting habitat for raptors or other birds should be conducted outside the normal nesting season (generally February 15 to August 15). If project work would occur during nesting season, a qualified biologist shall survey the site no more than 14 days prior to construction. If active nests are found, exclusion zones of a distance appropriate for the species (typically 50 to 100 feet) shall be established. No work would occur within the exclusion zones until all young have become independent of the nest. If no active nests are found, no work restrictions would apply. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the,significant environmental effect'as identified in the EIR. Impact BIO=2: The project will impact protected wetlands identified as jurisdictional by the Army Corps of Engineers. Mitigation BIO-2: The applicant shall avoid impacts to wetlands to the maximum extent practicable. Where impacts are unavoidable, the applicant shall apply to the Army Corps for a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit and comply with all mitigation'measures contained therein. Evidence of ACOE and RWQCB permits shall be submitted to the City of Petaluma for review prior to issuance of building permits. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Impact,NOISE-1: Project construction will result in a temporary increase in noise levels. Mitigation NOISE-la: All construction activities shall comply with applicable Performance Standards in the Petaluma Implementing Zoning Ordinance and Municipal Code. Mitigation NOISE-lb: All construction activities shall be limited to 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM Monday through Friday and 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturdays. Construction shall be prohibited on Sundays and all holidays recognized by the City of Petaluma. There would be no start up of machines nor equipment prior to 8:00 AM, Monday through Friday; no delivery of materials nor equipment prior to 7:30 AM nor past 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday; no cleaning of machines nor equipment past.6:00 PM, Monday through Friday; and no servicing of equipment past 6:45 PM, Monday through Friday. The developer's phone number shall be conspicuously posted at the project site for noise complaints. Mitigation NOISE-lc: The construction contractor shall locate stationary noise sources as far from existing sensitive receptors as possible. If stationary sources must be located near existing receptors,they shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds or other structures. Mitigation NOISE-I:d: The construction contractor shall implement feasible noise controls to minimize equipment noise impacts on nearby sensitive receptors. 2 -1 • Mitigation NOISE-le: Equipment used for project construction shall be hydraulically or electrically powered impact tools (e.g. Jack hammers) wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically-powered tools. Mitigation NOISE-If: The construction contractor shall implement appropriate additional noise reduction measures that include shutting off idling equipment and notifying adjacent residences in advance of construction work. Mitigation NOISE-Ig: The construction contractor shall stage equipment no less than 150 feet away from North McDowell Boulevard. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Impact NOISE-3: The project's contribution to cumulative exposure of persons to excessive noise levels from traffic-related noise and future rail service. Finding: Certification of the General Plan 2025 EIR included a statement of overriding considerations for significant and unavoidable noise impacts as a result of traffic-related noise and future rail service. The project contributes to these impacts and therefore they remain significant and unavoidable impacts in the cumulative analysis. Impact TRAFFIC-2b: Intersection operational impacts at East Washington Street/North McDowell will exceed thresholds of significance under existing plus project conditions. Finding: No feasible mitigation for this impact in the existing plus project condition was identified to reduce the level of significance. This impact remains significant and unavoidable. Impact TRAFFIC-3: Vehicle queuing in the southbound right turn lane was found to exceed thresholds of significance under the existing plus project scenario. Finding: Although construction of additional lane storage length would reduce the project's contribution'to significant impacts, additional right-of-way is not available for correction because of°the built-out' neighborhood along North McDowell. This impact remains significant and unavoidable. Impact TRAFFIC-5a: Intersection operational. impacts at Corona Road/North McDowell Boulevard will exceed threshold of significance under existing plus pipeline plus project conditions. 9- -5 Finding: Construction of additional travel lanes at this intersection conflicts with General Plan policy to avoid wider, more automobile-oriented intersections in favor of more pedestrian, bicycle, and transit-friendly designs. A statement of overriding considerations was adopted by the City for this intersection for the cumulative condition as part of the General Plan EIR certification. Impacts to this intersection remain significantand unavoidable. Impact TRAFFIC-5b: Intersection operational impacts at Corona Road/Petaluma Boulevard North will exceed threshold of significance under existing plus pipeline plus project conditions. Finding: No feasible mitigation was identified to reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, impacts to this intersection remain significant and unavoidable under this scenario. Impact TRAFFIC-5d: Intersection operational impacts at East Washington Street/North McDowell will exceed thresholds of significance under existing plus pipeline plus project conditions. Finding: No feasible mitigation for this impact in the existing plus project condition was identified to reduce the level of significant. This impact remains,significant and unavoidable. Impact TRAFFIC-6: Vehicle queuing in the southbound right turn lane was found to exceed thresholds of significance under the existing plus pipeline plus project scenario. Finding: Although construction of additional lane storage length would reduce the project's contribution to significant impacts, additional right-of-way is not available for correction because of the built-out neighborhood along North McDowell. Therefore, this impact remains significant and unavoidable. Impact TRAFFIC-7: The proposed project will increase traffic volumes on Highway 101 segments (Pepper Road to Old Redwood Highway and from East Washington Street to Lakeville Highway). These segments are expected to operate at LOS F without the project, but traffic volumes from the project are anticipated to increase the segment's theoretical capacity'by more than one percent. Additionally, these same segments on Northbound U.S. 101 will continue to operate at LOS F and traffic volumes from the project will contribute to the capacity of the facility. Finding: No feasible„mitigation was identified to reduce the impact to less-than-significant and therefore the,impact remains significant and unavoidable. lmpaet.TRAFFIC-8a> linpact•to Class I pathway and sidewalk along North McDowell Boulevard from right-only access,points to the project site. • Mitigation TRAFFIC-8a: Special measures shall be taken to avoid adverse impacts to the Class I path and sidewalk along the project frontage, particularly in locating monument signage, sight distance and curb radii (turning speed). Additionally, a.raised median shall be placed along the new northbound left-turn lane access to the main driveways, thereby preventing left-turn access to the site at the second (southerly) driveway. The,removal of the existing raised median on North McDowell Boulevard, between Professional Drive and Lynch Creek Way, to accommodate left-turn access-shall be replaced with a narrow raised median along the project frontage to prevent other than right-turn only access. The total cost of design and installation shall be borne by the proposed project. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Impact TRAFFIC-8b: Impact to Rainier Avenue Extension from access to the project site. Mitigation TRAFFIC-8b: At the time Rainier Avenue is extended to Petaluma Boulevard North, site access via Rainier Avenue shall be limited to right-turn ingress/egress only. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental,effect as identified in the EIR. Impact TRAFFIC-8c: Project-generated truck trips could potentially damage Lynch Creek Way if the roadway has not been designed to accommodate such truck trips on a daily basis. Mitigation TRAFFIC-8c: The project applicant shall be responsible for investigating and providing a. full roadway width structural section able to accommodate project-generated truck trips. The total costs of investigation and construction, if required based on the investigation, shall be borne by the project. Finding:'Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Impact TRAFFIC-8d: Inadequate turn lane length on the northbound left-turn lane at Professional:Drive and North McDowell. Mitigation 'TRAFFIC-8d: The northbound left-turn Lane at Professional Drive/North McDOWellBoulevard shall be designed to accommodate the expected queues. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Impact TRAFFIC-11a: Sidewalks along the project frontage of North McDowell Boulevard are in deteriorating condition and the project would contribute pedestrian trips to intersection with ADA deficiencies. Impact TRAFFIC-lib: If the Class I facility along the project frontage of North McDowell Boulevard is improperly designed there could be conflicts with projects driveways on North McDowell Boulevard. Mitigation TRAFFIC-1la and Ilk The project shall improve pedestrian and bicycle facilities on its frontage with North McDowell Boulevard and special care shall be taken to maintain sight distance and to clearly define right of way so as to reduce potential conflicts between the proposed Class I path and driveways. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Impact TRAFFIC-12: Without preemption provided at the proposed signal at Professional Drive/North McDowell Boulevard, emergency access impacts would be significant. Mitigation TRAFFIC-12: Emergency vehicle pre-emption shall be provided as part of the proposed project's addition of a traffic signal at the intersection of Professional Drive/North McDowell Boulevard to prevent additional delay which would be experienced by emergency responders along this corridor without emergency vehicle pre-emption. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or,incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Impact TRAFFIC-15a: Intersection impacts at the Rainier Avenue/Maria Drive intersection,in the cumulative plus project conditions exceed the threshold of significance. Mitigation TRAFFIC-15a: The proposed project shall contribute to the City Traffic Impact Mitigation fees for the installation of a traffic signal in the Cumulative plus Project condition at the intersection of Rainier Avenue/Maria Drive. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Impact.TRAFFIC-15b: Exceedance of thresholds of significance at.Rainier Avenue/North McDowell Boulevard`in the cumulative plus project condition. Finding: No feasible mitigation was identified to reduce the impact to less than significant and therefore it remains significant and unavoidable. Impact TRAFFIC-15c: Intersection operations at Rainier Avenue and the project access would result in delay to right-turn egress movements exiting the proposed project onto Rainier in the cumulative scenario; however no vehicle delays on Rainier Avenue itself are anticipated. Finding: The construction of the Rainier Avenue cross-town connector and U.S. 101 and Rainier Avenue Interchange'will limit access along the project's north frontage and a traffic signal is not feasible in this location due to spacing with the intersection of Rainier/North McDowell and traffic entering and exiting the freeway. Access shall be limited to right-turn in and right-turn out when Rainier is extended (mitigation measure Traffic-8b). Despite this mitigation, impacts to the project access intersection remain significant and unavoidable. Impact TRAFFIC-15e: Intersection operational impacts at Corona Road/North McDowell Boulevard will exceed threshold of significance under cumulative conditions. Finding: Construction of additional travel lanes at this intersection conflicts with General Plan policy to avoid wider, more automobile-oriented intersections in favor of more pedestrian, bicycle, and transit-friendly designs. A statement of overriding considerations was adopted by the City for this intersection for the cumulative condition as part of the General Plan EIR certification. Impacts to this intersection remain significant and unavoidable. Impact"TRAFFIC-16: Vehicle queuing in the southbound right turn lane at the intersection of East Washington Street/North McDowell Boulevard was found to exceed thresholds of significance under the cumulative scenario. Finding: Although construction of additional lane storage length would reduce the project's contribution to significant impacts,additional right-of-way is not available for correction because of the built-out neighborhood along North McDowell. This impact remains significant and unavoidable. Impact TRAFFIC-17: Northbound U.S. 101 for each of the study segments is expected to continue to operate;at'LOS F with project generated trips contributing to traffic impacts. Finding: No feasible mitigation measures were identified that would reduce the proposed project's impact.to:less-than-significant. Therefore, the impact remains significant and unavoidable. ImpactTRAFFIC-18: Project generated trips are expected to result in the need for turn lane lengths greater than shown on plans. Inadequate turn lane lengths may increase hazards. Mitigation TRAFFIC-18: The proposed project shall contribute to the City Traffic Impact Mitigation fees for the installation of intersection improvements, in the Cumulative plus Project condition, at the intersection of Rainier Avenue/North McDowell Boulevard. Further, the project shall conform to the precise plan line to accommodate the number of turn lanes and storage lengths identified in the EIR. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Impact PS-1: With the ability of police vehicles to override traffic controls with lights, sirens, signal pre-emption and travel in opposing travel lanes in congested conditions, police response times would not be significantly delayed because of additional traffic from the proposed project. However, without emergency vehicle pre-emption provided at the proposed signal at Professional Drive/North McDowell Boulevard, emergency access impacts would be significant: Mitigation PS-1: Emergency vehicle pre-emption shall be provided as part of the proposed • project's addition of a traffic signal at the intersection of Professional Drive/North McDowell Boulevard to prevent additional delay which would be experienced by emergency responders along this corridor without emergency vehicle pre-emption. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. Impact PS-2: Project-generated truck trips could potentially damage, Lynch Creek Way if the roadway has not been designed to accommodate such truck trips on a daily basis. This is a potentially significant impact. Mitigation PS-2: The project applicant shall be responsible for investigating and providing a.full roadway width structural section able to accommodate project-generated truck trips. The total costs of investigation and construction, if required based on the investigation, shall be borne upon by project. Finding: Changes or alterations. have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which. avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Elk. Impact CULT-d: Given the archaeological sensitivity of the project area, it is possible that unknown prehistoric archaeological resources and/or human burials could be found on the site. Disturbance of these artifacts or remains during construction would constitute a significant impact. Mitigation CULT-la: Prior to excavation and construction on the proposed project site, the prime construction:.contractor and any subcontractor(s) shall be cautioned at the preconstruction meeting with the City on the legal and/or regulatory implications of knowingly destroying cultural resources or removing artifacts, human remains, bottles, and other cultural materials from the project site. r 122 Mitigation CULT-lb: If during any phase of project construction, any paleontological resources are encountered, construction activities within a fifty-meter radius shall be halted immediately, and the project applicant shall notify the City. Mitigation.CULT-1c: If during any phase of project construction, any cultural materials are encountered, construction activities within a fifty-meter radius shall be halted immediately, and the project applicant shall notify the City. Mitigation CULT-ld: If human remains are discovered at the project site during construction, work at the specific construction site at which the remains have been uncovered shall be suspended, and the City of Petaluma and County coroner shall be immediately notified. Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the DR. EXHIBIT B FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15126(a) states that an HR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project or the location of the Project that would feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the Project and could avoid or substantially lessen any of the Project's significant impacts. The EIR evaluated the alternatives listed below. The City Council considered the alternatives but finds them to be infeasible for the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations set forth below pursuant to CEQA Sec. 21081(a)(3). NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE Under this alternative, the proposed project would not be constructed and the site would remain in its existing condition. Finding — Infeasible. This alternative would avoid all of the Project's significant impacts. However, it would not achieve the Project's objectives and would not provide for the mix of retail, recreational, and office uses allowed under the City's applicable General Plan land use designation and zoning ordinance provisions. It would not generate the anticipated revenue beneficial to the City's long term fiscal health no provide a homeimprovement center which has been identified as being a primary source,of leakage from the City to other market locations. REDUCED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE The Reduced Project Alternative was designed to reduce the potential traffic impacts by 25 percent. This alternative maintains the same square footage for the proposed major retail anchor and offices but reduces the additional retail, restaurant, and fitness center by approximately percent from the proposed 174,170 square feet to 87,5.00 square feet. The reduced square footage would be utilized for,additional green space throughout the modified project. Short term air quality impacts during grading would be similar to the project because roughly the same amount of grading would be!required. However, air quality impacts during construction would be slightly less because this alternative involves 25 percent less development. Long term operational- air quality impacts Would also be less under this alternative because it involves 25 percent less development, resulting in less natural gas and electricity consumption and 25 percent fewer vehicle trips per day: Despite these reductions in air quality impacts, the greenhouse gas emissions would remain significant and unavoidable under the Reduced Project Alternatives Noise impacts during construction would be slightly less than the proposed project, however, cumulative traffic noise impacts would remain signifiacnt and unavoidable. The Reduced Project Alternative consists of approximately 87,500 fewer square feet of commercial uses and as a result would generate fewer net average daily trips and peak hour trips when compared to the project. Overall, traffic impacts would be less under the Reduced Project Alternative; however this alternative would not substantially lessen the significant-traffic impacts. Finding-- Infeasible. Although the Reduced Project Alternative would lessen some impacts, it would not eliminate;any of the significant impacts of the project. This alternative would reduce the employment opportunities, the net fiscal General Fund revenue, and would minimize improvement of identified retail leakage. COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL CARE PROJECT ALTERNATIVE The Commercial and Residential Care Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, except for the No Project Alternative. Under this scenario none of the significant • impacts of the project would be eliminated. This alternative would maintain the square footage for the home improvement store but would replace the other Major anchors with a 50-bed residential care facility for the elderly. Short term air quality impacts during grading and construction would be similar to those for the Project. Although operational air quality emissions for the Commercial and Residential Care Project Alternative would be reduced, these impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Cumulative noise impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Overall traffic impacts associated with this alternative would be less than those for the Project, but no significant and unavoidable impacts would be reduced to less than significant. Finding—Infeasible. This alternative would still meet most of the project objectives, although the retail leakage benefits, employment opportunities, and net fiscal General fund revenue would be reduced proportionally to the reduction in retail square footage from the removal of the major tenants except for the home improvement center. For these reasons, the Commercial and Residential Care Project Alternative is considered infeasible because it does not fully meet the project objectives and does not'eliminate any of the significant and unavoidable impacts of the Project. EXHIBIT C STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS I. Legal Basis and Background Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines,section.15093, the City Council of the City of Petaluma adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerationsfor those impacts identified in the General Plan Elk as significant and unavoidable. (Resolution 2008-084 N.C:S., May 8, 2008.) Although the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the General Plan EIR, pursuant to the court decision in Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency, 103 Cal. App. 4th 98, (2002), the City must adopt specific overriding considerations for this Project. The City Council has considered the information contained in the EIR and has fully reviewed and considered all of the public testimony, documentation, exhibits, reports, and presentations included in the record of these proceedings. The Council finds that each determination made in this Statement of Overriding Considerations is supported by substantial evidence set forth in the CEQA Findings and/or herein and/or in the record of proceedings. Many of the unavoidable environmental effects identified in.the General Plan EIR that are applicable to the Project will be substantially lessened by mitigation measures adopted with the General Plan and by mitigation_measures adopted for the proposed Project. Even with mitigation, implementation of the Project carries with it certain unavoidable adverse environmental effects. The City Council specifically finds that to the extent that the identified adverse or potentially adverse impacts for the Project have not been mitigated to acceptable levels, there are specific economic, social, environmental, land use, and other considerations that support approval of the Project. Significant and Unavoidable Impacts • The following unavoidable'significant and unavoidable environmental impacts apply to the Project: • Impact AQ-1: Forseeable construction activities during grading, the first year of construction would create average daily emissions that exceed the BAAQMD thresholds. • Impact AQ-4: The project's greenhouse gas emissions are considered to have a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant impact. • Iinpact NOISE-3: The project's contribution to cumulative exposure of persons to excessive noise levels from traffic-related noise and future rail service. • Impact 'TRAFFIC-2b: Intersection operational impacts at East Washington Street/North McDowell will exceed thresholds of significance under existing plus project conditions. • Impact TRAFFIC-3: Vehicle queuing in the southbound right turn lane was found to exceed thresholds of significance under the existing plus project scenario. • Impact TRAFFIC-5a: Intersection operational impacts at Corona Road/North McDowell Boulevard will exceed threshold of significance under existing plus pipeline plus project conditions. • Impact TRAFFIC-5b: Intersection operational impacts at Corona Road/Petaluma Boulevard North will exceed threshold of significance under existing plus pipeline plus project conditions. • Impact TRAFFIC-5d: Intersection operational,impacts at East Washington Street/North McDowell will exceed thresholds of significance under existing plus pipeline plus project conditions. • Impact,TRAFFIC-6: Vehicle queuing in the southbound right turn lane was found to exceed thresholds of significance under the existing plus pipeline plus project scenario. • Impact TRAFFIC-7: The proposed project will increase traffic volumes on Highway 101 segments (Pepper Road,to Old Redwood Highway and from East Washington Street to Lakeville Highway). These segments are expected to operate at LOS F without the project, but traffic volumes from the project are anticipated to increase the segment's theoretical capacity by more than one percent. Additionally, these same segments on Northbound U.S. 101 will continue to operate-at LOS F and traffic volumes from the project will contribute to-the capacity of the facility. • Impact TRAFFIC-15b: Exceedance of thresholds of significance at Rainier Avenue/North McDowell Boulevard in the existing plus project condition. • Impact TRAFFIC-15c: Intersection operations at Rainier Avenue and the project access would result in delay to right-turn egress movements exiting the proposed project in the cumulative scenario; however no vehicle delays on Rainier Avenue itself are anticipated. • Impact TRAFFIC-15e: Intersection operational impacts at Corona Road/North McDowell Boulevard will exceed threshold of significance under cumulative'conditions. • Impact TRAFFIC-16: Vehicle queuing in the southbound right turn lane at the intersection.of East Washington Street/North McDowell Boulevard was found to exceed thresholds of significance under the cumulative scenario. • Impact TRAFFIC-17: Northbound U.S. 101 for each of the study segments is expected to continue to operate at LOS F with project generated trips contributing to traffic impacts.. All applicable project level General Plan policies, programs and implementation measures which were adopted to reduce the significant and unavoidable cumulative effects relevant to the Project will be complied with, either by incorporation into the Project or through mitigation measures. All mitigation measures identified in the Project EfR to partially reduce significant and unavoidable impacts, even if not effective to reduce those impacts to a level of less than significant, will be imposed on the Project through conditions of approval. The City has balanced the significant and unavoidable impacts on the environment of the Project as described above against the benefits of the Project, and hereby determines that such unavoidable impacts are outweighed by the benefits of the Project set forth below. II. Benefits of the Project 1. The Project will contribute to the City's economy by providing both temporary and permanent jobs and a mixture of both full-time and part-time permanent jobs. General Plan Policy 9-P-10 encourages economic development that will enhance job opportunities for existing City residents, including jobs that match the skills of unemployed or underemployed workers who live in Petaluma, commit to first source hiring for workers who live in Petaluma, and pay wages that enable workers to live in Petaluma. The Project will provide both temporary and permanent jobs in the City of Petaluma, although the majority of the jobs will be permanent. According to the Fiscal and Economic Impact Analysis (Bay Area Economics January, 2009) considered by the City Council on May 4, 2009, which is incorporated herein by reference ("FEIA"), the Project will provide approximately 331 temporary construction jobs, and 510 permanent jobs, with 409 of those jobs in retail. This would be offset by the anticipated loss of 48 similar retail sector jobs as a result of the project. The new jobs would be a mix of full time and part time positions, consistent with the retail industry. It is estimated that more than two-thirds of the new jobs would be full time positions. The city's Living Wage Policy is not applicable to the project. However, the average wages for most occupations likely to be found at Deer Creek Village exceed the City's Living Wage standard for employees without medical benefits. Food preparation and serving-related occupations have average wages below the living wage levels, but food servers often earn tips that supplement their wage income. Many workers in the medical offices would be in occupations with relatively high wages. Starting wages for new retail hires could be below the living wage levels, but the proposed Project's employment structure would not necessarily provide lower wages than are normally found for retail workers in the area. 2. The Project will pay development impact fees that will offset costs of City services and facilities attributable to the Project. 0 - 11 According to the FEIA, the project will generate $9.2 million in development impact fees to the City..These fees will offset the Project's service demands on a wide range of City agencies and departments, including,but not limited to, the aquatic center, library, open space and park land, police, fire, public facilities such as city hall, city administration, community center facilities and traffic improvements, and water and wastewater infrastructure. These fees will be collected at the time of building permit issuance. Since that is anticipated to fall within the 2013 calendar year, payment would provide the City with a significant amount of revenue to address pressing infrastructure and related needs which have the required nexus to the fees collected. 3. The Project will increase annual General Fund revenue to the City. General Plan Policy 9-P-19 encourages the long-term fiscal health of Petaluma as the City continues to develop; balancing fiscal concerns with economic, social, environmental, and cultural values. The policy calls for the expansion of the City's fiscal base, seeking economic benefits that yield net fiscal benefits to the City. According to the FEIA, the Project is anticipated to generate approximately $82.7 million in annual retail sales, 97 percent of which is taxable. Thus, the Project would generate $714,000 in sales tax revenue per year to the City's General Fund, based on long-term projections (The FEIA sales tax revenue estimate notes that it is a long-term estimate and maybe somewhat less in the short term. FEIA, p. 62.) The Deer Creek Village Urban Decay Analysis (EPS, September 2010, Draft EIR Technical Appendix C, "EPS Study") also contained an estimate of increased sales tax revenue attributable to the Project in the shorter term, estimating the Project's share of net new general fund revenue to the City in 2015 as $406,176. The EPS Study was performed to evaluate the potential for urban decay resulting from the Project for CEQA purposes and is not a full FEIA. It also used a different estimated trade area and included the effect of an approved E. Washington Place project, which the FEIA did not because East Washington Place had not yet been approved when the FEIA was done. In addition, the City is anticipated to receive $17,000 annually from projected property tax revenues based on using current assessed land value combined with new development costs to determine value. However, this estimate was based on allocation of property tax increment prior to the dissolution of the PCDC, which occurred on February 1, 2012, pursuant to AB xl 26. The.$17,000 amount was calculated from the City's base allocation of tax increment after distribution of other portions of tax increment revenue to the former PCDC and statutory pass-through to other entities, all as required by former law. After AB xl 26, an oversight board will evaluate and confirm recognized obligations of the former PCDC. The redistribution of portions of the former PCDC share of property tax increment not needed for recognized obligations and other statutory purposes will then be determined. It is not possible to estimate at this time whether the City will receive additional property tax income as a result, and if so, how much. Other Project:generated revenue is projected by the FEIA to include additional annual property transfer tax of$6,300. The project is anticipated to generate $33,600 in annual property tax in-lieu of Vehicle License-Fees (VLF) and fees from licenses and related project-generated revenue. The General Fund cost for the City to provide ongoing services to,the Project would include $54,700 for police, $26,500 for fire, $14,500 for public works and smaller amounts for ancillary public services. Therefore, the net fiscal impact to the General Fund would amount to $103,200 annually. The resulting annual net fiscal surplus to the General Fund as a result of this project is anticipated to be between $681,000, based on the long term projection in the FEIA, and $373,077 based on the 2015 sales tax estimate in the EPS Study. Because of the effects of AB x l 26, redevelopment tax increment revenues are not included in these revenue benefits, other than as noted above or discussed in the record regarding payment of existing PCDC obligations to be confirmed by a future oversight board. 4. The Project will significantly address the long term negative economic impact of retail leakage, particularly in the home improvement segment. Although proposed with a Lowe's home improvement store, the applicant states that the Project currently has an executed lease for a Friedman's home improvement store with approximately 120,000 square feet; similar in size to the originally proposed Lowe's. The EPS Study shows Petaluma's retail leakage attributable to building materials and construction at $27,596,606 annually(Table 13, p. 31). The FETA estimated a slightly larger number, $28,333,000 (Table 12). This figure does not include additional leakage from home furnishings and appliances, some of which would be available at Friedman's. Overall, the two reports show between $38.7 and $42.9 million in total annual Project sales capture from retail leakage (EPS Study, Table 13;.FEIA, Table 12). 6. The Project will utilize local labor for both temporary and permanent employment to the maximum extent feasible The Project applicant and its successors will use good faith efforts to provide to persons and businesses that reside or have their main office in the City of Petaluma opportunities for employment on the project This will include local advertising including but not limited to local newspapers job boards and existing recruitment centers for the purposes of recruiting temporary construction and permanent project labor needs The applicant will submit to staff documentary proof of publication and outreach. 7. The Project will utilize local point of sale for Project construction and related materials to the extent feasible. The Projectapplicant and its successors will use good faith efforts to commercially identify responsible parties-who are persons or businesses which have a place of business in the City of Petaluma'that are capable of providing those goods and materials that the applicant needs to procure,and construct the Project The applicant will also use good faith.efforts to provide these parties opportunities to supply these goods and materials for the Project. 8. The Project will provide amenities and enhancements to the surrounding East Petaluma community. The project has been designed to provide enhancements for the East Petaluma community such>as restoration of the Deer Creek Swale with a development buffer zone and native plantings along the delineated boundaries of the swale. The area will be further enhanced with pathways and public art installations on either side of the swale and outside of the development buffer zone. Additionally, the design oftthe shops and roadway in the eastern portion of the development provides a community-gathering area for activities such as fanners markets, festivals and other,community events. This meets a need of the East • Petaluma community forgathering space. Finally, the applicant has proposed pathways and a dog park as an interim use in the area within the adopted plan line for the Rainier Avenue • Interchange. This allows beneficial use of the otherwise unused area in the time between development of the Deer Creek Village project and the future construction of the Rainier Avenue Interchange. II. Conclusion The City Council has considered the information contained in the Project EIR and has fully reviewed and considered all ofthe public testimony, documentation, exhibits, reports, and presentations included in the record of these proceedings. The City Council finds that each determination made in this Statement of Overriding Considerations is supported by substantial evidence set forth herein and/or in the CEQA Findings and/or in the record of proceedings. Based on the foregoing, and pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City Council finds that the specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits that the Project will produce, as described herein, outweigh the remaining significant and unavoidable adverse environmental impacts ofthe Project and render those impacts acceptable. The City Council further finds that any one of the overriding considerations.set forth herein is sufficient to render the above described adverse environmental impacts acceptable. EXHIBIT D MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING.PROGRAM MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM PROCEDURES Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code requires a Lead Agency to adopt a "reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment" (Mitigation Monitoring Program, Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines provides additional direction on mitigation monitoring or reporting). The City of Petaluma (the "City") is the Lead Agency for the Deer Creek Village project and is therefore responsible for enforcing and monitoring the mitigation measures in this.Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP). A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) has been prepared to address the potential environmental impacts of the project. Where appropriate, this environmental document identified project design features or recommended mitigation measures to avoid or to mitigate potential impacts identified to a level where no significant impact on the environment would occur. This MMP is designed to monitor implementation of the required mitigation measures and conditions set forth for project approval for the proposed project as identified in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEW) and the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEW). The mitigation measures as well as the conditions set forth for project approval are listed and categorized by either Section and/or impact area, with an accompanying identification of the following: • Monitoring Phase, the phase of the project during which the mitigation measure shall be monitored: o Pre-Construction, including the design phase o Construction o Operation (post-construction) • ImplementingParty, the party responsible for implementing the mitigation measure. • The Enforcement Agency, the agency with the power to enforce the mitigation measure. • The Monitoring Agency, the agency to which reports involving feasibility, compliance, implementation and development,are made. The MMP for the proposed project will be in place throughout all phases of the project. The project applicant shall be 'responsible for implementing all mitigation measures unless otherwise noted. The applicant shall also be obligated to provide certification, as identified below to the appropriate monitoring agency and the appropriate enforcement agency that compliance with the 2 — S l required mitigation measure has been implemented. The City will be used as the basic foundation for the MMP procedures and will also serve to provide the documentation for the reporting program. Generally, each certification report will be submitted to the City in a timely manner following completion/implementation of the applicable mitigation measure and shall include sufficient information to reasonably determine whether the intent of the measure has been satisfied. The City shall assure that project construction occurs in accordance with the MMP. Departments listed below are all departments of the City unless otherwise noted. GEOLOGY/SOILS Required Mitigation Measures GEO-1 Strong Seismic Ground S/taking GEO-la All construction activities shall meet the California Building Code regulations for seismic safety (i.e. reinforcing perimeter and/or load bearing walls, bracing parapets, etc.). GEO-lb Prior to issuance of a grading permit, building permit or approval of an improvement plan or Final Map, the applicant shall provide a Final Soils Investigation and Geotechnical Report prepared by a registered professional civil engineer for review and approval of the City Engineer and Chief Building Official in accordance with the Subdivision Ordinance and.Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance. The soils report shall address site-specific soil conditions (i.e. highly expansive soils) and include recommendations for: site preparation and grading; foundation and soil engineering design, pavement design, utilities, roads, bridges and structures. GEO-lc Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall submit a detailed schedule for field inspection of work in progress to ensure that all applicable codes; conditions and mitigation measures are being properly implemented through construction of the project. GEO-ld The project= applicant shall implement the recommendations in the Kleinfelder investigation related to site preparation, foundation support, site seismic characterization, site preparation and grading, foundations, concrete slabs-on- grade, retaining walls, and surface and subsurface drainage control. Monitoring Phase Pre-Construction/Construction Implementing'Party Applicant/Geologist/Contractor Enforcement Ageney Community Development Department Monitoring Agency Public Works/Community Development Department GEO-2 Geologic and Soil Instability GEO-2a The design of all earthwork, cuts and fills, drainage, pavements, utilities,. foundations and structural components shall conform with the specifications and criteria contained in the geotechnical report, as approved by the City Engineer. The geotechnical engineer shall sign the improvement plans and certify the design as conforming to the specifications. The geotechnical engineer shall also inspect the construction work and shall certify to the City, prior to acceptance of the improvements or issuance of a certificate of occupancy that the improvements have been constructed in accordance with the geotechnical specifications. Construction and improvement plans shall be reviewed for conformance with the geotechnical specifications by the City Engineer and Chief Building Official prior to issuance of grading or building permits and/or advertising for bids on public improvement projects. Additional soils information may be required by the Chief Building Inspector during the plan check of building plans in accordance with Title 17 and 20 of the Petaluma Municipal Code. GEO-2b Foundation and structural design for buildings shall conform to the requirements of the California Building Code, as well as state and local laws/ordinances. Construction plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Building Division prior to the issuance of a building permit. All work shall be subject to inspection by the Building Division and must conform to all applicable code requirements and approved improvement plans prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. GEO-2c The applicant shall follow the recommendations provided by Treadwell &-Rollo: 1. Fill Placement and Compaction: Kleinfelder preliminarily recommends that the general and select engineered fill be placed in eight inch loose lifts and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction in accordance with ASTM D1557. Parking and driveway subgrade should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. Treadwell & Rollo concurs with Kleinfelder's preliminary recommendations, except that high-expansive, near-surface soil is sensitive to changes in moisture content; therefore, it should be moisture- conditioned to at least three to four percent above the optimum moisture content prior to compaction. The select fill need only be moisture-conditioned to near or slightly above the optimum moisture content prior to compaction. 2. Foundations: Kleinfelder preliminarily recommends the proposed buildings be supported on spread footings. The spread footings should be at least 12 inches wide, embedded at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent compacted pad grade, and should rest on at least a 12 inch thick layer of properly compacted.and approved fill. Spread footings should be designed based on allowable dead plus. code live load and total load (including wind or seismic forces) bearing capacities of 2,500 and 3,500 pounds per square foot (psf), respectively. Resistance to lateral loads can be obtained using a passive pressure of 1,000 psf against the embedded face of the foundations, and a base friction of 0.30 times the net vertical dead load. Lateral resistance from the upper foot of soil should be neglected where the soil surface is not confined by slabs or pavements. Treadwell & Rollo concurs with Kleinfelder's preliminary foundation recommendations. However, a final geotechnical investigation should be performed to further evaluate the potential for soil liquefaction and liquefaction-induced ground settlement, and the affects of ground settlement on the proposed foundation system. 3. Concrete Slabs on Grade: Kleinfelder preliminarily recommends that interior slabs on grade be underlain by a water vapor retarder system consisting of at least a 4 inch thick layer of baserock ( I %2 inch gradation) overlain by water vapor retarder membrane that is at least 10 mils thick. Treadwell & Rollo concurs that water vapor retarder system should be placed beneath slab on grade floors to reduce the potential for moisture migration through the slab. However, Treadwell & Rollo suggests using a 4 inch thick layer of drain rock or crushed rock (1/2 to 3/4 inch gradation) instead of "baserock" and using a vapor retarder membrane that meets the requirements'for Class C vapor retarders as stated in ASTM El 745-97. Also, the vapor retarders should be placed in accordance with the requirements of ASTM E1643-98. 4. Retaining Walls: Kleinfelder preliminary recommends that retaining walls that are free'to rotate be designed to resist lateral pressures resulting from active.earth' Pressures, be designed to resist added surcharge loads, such as from building footings or vehicular traffic, and be, properly backdrained. Treadwell & Rollo concurs;with Kleinfelder's preliminary recommendations, with the exception that walls.. used to retain highly expansive soil may be subjected to high lateral pressures associated with the swelling of expansive soil. Typically, walls that retain,expansive soil are designed to resist at-rest soil pressures or even higher lateral forces. Treadwell & Rollo 'suggests that Kleinfelder re-evaluate the wall design pressures or use an alternative backlit] material that is not expansive. - - 9nY 5. Kleinfelder's preliminary geotechnical investigation is based on four borings that are more than 800 feet apart. Treadwell & Rollo recommends that a final geotechnical investigation be performed for this project to provide subsurface data and recommendations that are specific to each of the proposed building sites. Also, Kleinfelder's final investigation should further evaluate the potential for soil liquefaction and liquefaction-induced ground settlement at the proposed building locations, and re-evaluate the adequacy of the proposed foundation system to mitigate potential seismic hazards. 6. Due to the .highly expansive nature of the on-site, near-surface soil, it is important to properly moisture-condition the highly expansive near-surface soil prior to compaction. Kleinfelder should provide recommendations for moisture- conditioning:and compacting on-site and imported fill. 7. Treadwell.& Rollo suggests that Kleinfelder clarify the terminology used for specifying the granular material beneath the interior floor slabs. Treadwell & Roll suggests using "drain rock" or poorly graded crushed rock" to describe the granular layer used as a capillary moisture break beneath the concrete slab-on- grade floors. Also, Treadwell & Rollo suggests Kleinfelder consider using the requirements and specifications provided in ASTM E1745-97 and ASTM E1643- 98 for vapor retarders. 8. Treadwell & Rollo suggests that Kleinfelder re-evaluate the retaining wall design pressures or provide alternate backfilling specification for walls that would retain highly expansive soil. 9. Parking areas and driveways would comprise a significant portion of the proposed project site. As part of the final geotechnical investigation, Treadwell & Rollo suggests that Kleinfelder provide recommendations for new pavements for the proposed parking areas, driveways, and bicycle and pedestrian pathways. 10. As part of the final geotechnical investigation, Treadwell & Rollo suggests that Kleinfelder provide geotechnical recommendations for bridge foundations and abutments. 11. The proposed use of select fill to mitigate the adverse impacts associated with highly expansive fill could result in the need for imported fill. Alternatively, lime- treatment of the highly expansive fill can be used to modify the expansive characteristics of the soil without the need for importing select fill. Typically, lime'treatihent equipment can only mix lime into the upper approximately 18 to 24 inches of the soil Therefore, Kleinfelder should describe a procedure for adequately lime-treating a 30 inch thick layer of soil beneath proposed building and concrete slab areas, if this option is to be used. Monitoring Phase Pre-Construction/Construction/Operation Implementing Party Applicant//Geologist/Contractor Enforcement Agency Community Development Department Monitoring Agency Public Works/Community Development Department GEO-3 Soil Erosion/Loss of Topsoil GEO-3a All earthwork, grading, trenching, backfilling and compaction operations shall be conducted in accordance with the City of Petaluma's Subdivision Ordinance (#1046, Title 20, chapter 20-04 of the Petaluma Municipal Code) and Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance #1576, Title 17, Chapter 17.31 of the Petaluma Municipal Code. GEO-3b The applicant shall submit an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan prepared by a registered professional engineer as an integral part of the grading plan. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineering and Community Development Department, prior to issuance of a grading permit. The Plan shall include temporary erosion control measures to be used during construction of cut and fill slopes, excavation for foundations, and other grading operations at the site to prevent discharge of sediment and contaminants into the drainage system. The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan shall include the following measures as applicable. 1. Throughout the construction process, disturbance of groundcover shall be minimized and the existing vegetation shall be retained to the extent possible to reduce soil erosion. All construction and grading activities, including short-term needs (equipment staging areas, storage areas, and field office locations) shall minimize the amount of land area disturbed. Whenever possible, existing disturbed areas shall be used for such purposes. 2. All drainage ways, wetland areas and creek channels shall be protected from silt and sediment in storm runoff through the use of silt fences, diversion berms, and check dams. All exposed surface areas shall be mulched and reseeded and all cut and fill slopes shall be protected with hay mulch and/or erosion control blankets as appropriate. �,�tt, OU 3. Material and equipment for implementation of erosion control measures shall be on-site by October 15t. All grading activity shall be completed by October 15th, prior to the on-set of the rainy season, with all disturbed areas stabilized and revegetated by October 315t. Upon approval by the Petaluma City Engineer, extensions for short-term grading may be allowed. Special erosion control measures may be required by the City Engineer in conjunction with any specially permitted rainy season grading. 4. If required to prevent scour and erosion of channel banks, biotechnical erosion control and bank stabilization measures shall be incorporated into the grading and landscape plans as described in the "Restoration Design and Management Guidelines for the Petaluma River Watershed, Vol. II". Channel modifications shall be limited to specific problem areas. Monitoring Phase Pre-Construction/Construction Implementing Party Applicant/Geologist/Contractor Enforcement Agency Community Development Department Monitoring Agency Public Works/Community Development Department GEO-4 Exposure to Geologic Hazards See Mitigation Measures GEO-1 —GEO-3 above. Monitoring Phase Pre-Construction/Construction Implementing Party Applicant/Geologist/Contractor Enforcement Agency Community Development Department Monitoring Agency Public Works/Community Development Department AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Required Mitigation Measures AQ-1 Grading/Construction Impacts The project sponsors shall require that the following practices be implemented by requiring their inclusion in all contractor construction documents: 9 - a l 1. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. 2. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. 3. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. 4. Suspend construction activities that cause visible dust plumes to extend beyond the construction site. 5. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. 6. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone,number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. 7. During site grading, the developer or contractor shall provide a plan for approval by the City or BAAQMD demonstrating that the heavy-duty (>50 horsepower) off-road vehicles to be used in the construction project, including owned, leased and subcontractor vehicles, will achieve a project wide fleet- average 20 percent NO„ reduction and 45 percent particulate reduction compared to the most recent CARB fleet average for the year 2011. 8. The contractor shall install temporary electrical service whenever possible to avoid the need for independently powered equipment (e.g. compressors). 9. Properly tune and maintain equipment for low emissions. 10. All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil moisture of 12 percent. Moisture content can be verified by lab samples or moisture probe. 11. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph. 12. Wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) shall be installed on the windward side(s) of actively disturbed areas of construction. Wind breaks should have at maximum 50 percent air porosity. 13. Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established. 14. The simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and ground-disturbing construction activities on the same area at any one time shall be limited. Activities shall be phased to reduce the amount of disturbed surfaces at any one time. 15. All trucks and equipment, including their tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site. 16. Site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the,paved road shall be treated with a 6 to 12 inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel. 17. Sandbags or other erosion control measures shall be installed to prevent silt runoff to public roadways from sites with a slope greater than one percent. 18. Minimize the idling time of diesel powered construction equipment to two minutes. 19. The project shall develop a plan demonstrating that the off-road equipment (more than 50 horsepower) to be used in the construction project (i.e., owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles) would achieve a project wide fleet-average 20 percent NOX reduction and 45 percent PM reduction compared to the most recent ARB fleet average. Acceptable options for reducing emissions include the use of late model engines, low-emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment products, add-on devices such as particulate filters, and/or other options as such become available. 20. Use low VOC. (i.e., ROG) coatings beyond the local requirements (i.e., Regulation 8, Rule 3: Architectural Coatings). 21. Require that all construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators be equipped with Best Available Control Technology for emission reductions of NOx and PM. 22. Require that all contractors use equipment that meets CARB's most recent certification standard for off-road heavy duty diesel engines. 23. Encourage the use of alternative fuel construction.equipment (i.e., compressed natural gas, liquid petroleum gas, and unleaded gasoline). 24. Encourage they use of add-on control devices such as diesel oxidation catalysts or particulate filters. x '971 25. Phase construction of the project as proposed in the DEIR project description at page I11-34. 26. Limit the hours of operation of heavy duty equipment. Monitoring Phase Construction Implementing Party Applicant/Contractor Enforcement Agency Community Development Department/BAAQMD Monitoring Agency Community Development Department AQ-4 Operation Period GHG Emissions The applicant shall reduce air pollutant emissions from both vehicle trips and area sources by implementing the following measures: 1. Provide preferential parking near the office building entrance for carpool and vanpool vehicles. 2. Pedestrian facilities shall include easy access and signage to bus stops and roadways that serve the major site uses. 3. Project site employers shall be required to promote transit use by providing transit information and incentive's, for example, transit subsidies or free transit passes to employees. 4. Provide exterior electrical outlets to encourage use of electrical landscape equipment at retail and office uses. 5. Prohibit idling of trucks at loading docks for more than 5 minutes per State law and include signage indicating such a-prohibition. 6. Provide 110- and 220-volt electrical outlets at loading docks. 7.. Provide battery-powered, electric, or other similar equipment that does not impact local,air quality for project maintenance activities. 8. Incorporate passive solar building design and landscaping conducive to passive solar energy use (e.g., planting of deciduous trees on west sides of structures, Iandscaping with drought resistant species, and use of groundcovers rather than pavement in certain areas to reduce heat reflection). Provide solar hot water systems for the fitness center, 9. During final design, the applicant shall develop Green Building standards or equivalent that meet or exceed compliance with CalGreen Tier 1 requirements. The applicant shall present these to the City prior the issuance of a building permit; 10. As required by the General Plan, the applicant shall incorporate features to reduce energy related GHG emissions including, but not limited, to pedestrian linkages, connections to local transit, bike lanes, bike parking, and showers for employees. 11. In addition to providing trees for shading, provide drought tolerant landscaping to reduce water usage that lead indireetly to electricity usage and GHG emissions. 12. Require a percentage of parking spaces in large parking lots or garages to provide electrical vehicle charging facilities. 13. Prohibit the use of incandescent,light bulbs for interior lighting. 14. Reduce parking hardscape while still meeting City Code requirements for parking. 15. Require the use of"cool pavement" that reflects more solar energy. 16. Purchase "green electricity" from solar, geothermal, wind, or hydroelectric sources through green tags. 17. Provide prioritized parking for hybrid vehicles. Monitoring Phase Operation Implementing Party Applicant Enforcement Agency Community Development DepartmentBAAQMD Monitoring Agency Community Development Department HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY Required Mitigation Measures HYDRO-1 Storm Water Quality HYDRO—la The project applicant shall prepare and submit an erosion control plan. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Petaluma prior to issuance of a 0 9712 grading permit for the proposed development. The erosion control plan shall include phasing of grading, limiting areas of disturbance, designation of restricted-entry zones, diversion of runoff away from disturbed areas, protective measures for sensitive areas, outlet protection and provision for revegetation or mulching. The plan shall also prescribe treatment,measures to trap sediment, such as inlet protection, straw bale barriers, straw mulching, straw wattles, silt fencing, check dams, terracing, and siltation or sediment ponds. HYDRO-1b In accordance with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations, the applicant shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for implementation throughout project construction to control erosion on the project site and to provide guidelines for the storage, use and clean-up of fuels and hazardous materials. To help reduce the long-term accumulation of non-point source pollutants from the project within downstream surface waters, the applicant shall incorporate long-term source control and pre-discharge treatment measures into the SWPPP, subject to approval by the City Engineer and in conformance with all applicable RWQCB design standards. HYDRO-lc The project shall comply with the City of Petaluma Phase II Storm Water Management Plan including attachment four post construction requirements. HYDRO-ld The storm drain system design shall be reviewed and approved by the Sonoma County Water Agency. Monitoring Phase Pre-Construction/Construction Implementing Party Applicant/Contractor Enforcement Agency Community Development Department/RWQCB Monitoring Agency Public Works/Community Development Department BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Required.Mitigation Measures BIO-1 Special Status Species BIO-1'a. Site grading shall be conducted in accordance with the City's Storm Water/Grading-and Erosion Control Ordinance. B1O-1 b All construction activities in and immediately adjacent to trees or shrubs providing potential nesting habitat for raptors or other birds should be conducted outside the normal nesting season (generally February 15 to August 15). If project work would occur during nesting season, a qualified biologist shall survey the site no more than 14 days prior to construction. if active nests are found, exclusion zones of a distance appropriate for the species (typically 50 to 100 feet) shall be established. No work would occur within the exclusion zones until all young have become independent of the nest. If no active nests are found, no work restrictions would apply. Monitoring Phase Pre-Construction/Construction Implementing Party Applicant/Contractor/Biologist Enforcement Agency Community Development Department/CDFG Monitoring Agency Community Development Department BIO-2 Jurisdictional Waters BIO-2 The applicant shall avoid impacts to wetlands to the maximum extent practicable. Where impacts are unavoidable, the applicant shall apply to the Army Corps for a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit and comply with all mitigation measures contained therein. Evidence of ACOE and.RWQCB permits shall be submitted to the City of Petaluma for review prior to issuance of building permits. Monitoring Phase Pre-Construction/Construction Implementing Party Applicant/Contractor Enforcement Agency Community Development Department/RWQCB/ACOE Monitoring Agency Community Development Department NOISE Required Mitigation Measures NOISE-1 Temporary Increases in Noise Levels NOISE-la All construction activities shall comply with applicable Performance Standards in the Petaluma Implementing Zoning Ordinance and Municipal Code. NOISE-lb All construction activities shall be limited to 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM Monday through Friday and 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturdays. Construction shall be prohibited on Sundays and all holidays recognized by the City of Petaluma. There would be no start up of machines nor equipment prior to 8:00 AM, Monday through Friday; no delivery of materials nor equipment prior to 7:30 AM nor past 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday; no cleaning of machines nor equipment past 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday; and no servicing of equipment past 6:45 PM, Monday through Friday. The developer's phone number shall be conspicuously posted at the project site for noise complaints. NOISE-1c The construction contractor shall locate stationary noise sources as far from existing sensitive receptors as possible. If stationary sources must be located near existing receptors, they shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds or other structures. NOISE-1d The construction contractor shall implement feasible noise controls to minimize equipment noise impacts on nearby sensitive receptors. Feasible noise, controls include improved mufflers, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically-attenuating shields or shrouds. NOISE-Ie Equipment used for project construction shall be hydraulically or electrically powered impact tools (e.g. Jack hammers) wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically-powered tools. Where. use of pneumatically-powered tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used. A muffler could lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to about 10 dBA. External jackets on the tools themselves shall be used where feasible; this could achieve a reduction of five dBA. Quieter procedures shall be used (such as drilling rather than impact equipment)wherever feasible. NOISE-1f The construction contractor shall implement appropriate additional noise reduction measures that include shutting off idling equipment and notifying adjacent residences (at least one time) in advance of construction work. NOISE-1g The construction contractor shall stage equipment no less than 150 feet away from North McDowell Boulevard. Monitoring.Phase Construction Implementing Party Applicant/Contractor Enforcement Agency Community Development Department Monitoring Agency Community Development Department TRAFFIC Required Mitigation Measures TRAFFIC-1 Temporary Sidewalk Blockage If temporary sidewalk blockages are unavoidable, the project sponsor shall be required to provide safe and accessible pedestrian:facilities along the project's frontage until the temporary blockage is removed. Monitoring Phase Pre-construction/Construction Implementing Party Applicant/Contractor Enforcement Agency Public Works/Community Development Department Monitoring Agency Public Works/Community Development Department TRAFFIC-8a North McDowell Boulevard Right-turn Access Driveways Special measures shall be taken to avoid adverse impacts to the Class I path and sidewalk along the project frontage, particularly in locating monument signage, sight distance and curb radii (turning speed). Additionally, a raised median shall be placed along the new northbound left- turn lane access to the main driveways, thereby preventing left-turn access to the site at the second (southerly) driveway. It is expected that the egress movements shall be stop controlled,at both locations. The removal of the existingraised median on North McDowell Boulevard, between Professional Drive and Lynch Creek Way, to.accommodate left-turn access shall be replaced with a narrow raised median along the project frontage to prevent other than right-turn only access. The total cost of design and installation shall be borne upon the proposed project. Monitoring Phase Pre-construction/Construction Implementing Party Applicant/Contractor Enforcement Agency Public Works/Community Development Department Monitoring Agency Public Works/Community Development Department 0 � 71 TRAFFIC-8b Rainer Avenue Extension At the time Rainier Avenue is extended to Petaluma Boulevard North, site access via Rainier Avenue shall be limited to right-turn ingress/egress only. Monitoring Phase Operation Implementing Party Applicant/Contractor Enforcement Agency Public Works/Community Development Department Monitoring Agency Public Works/Community.Development Department TRAFFIC-8c Lynch Creek Way The project applicant shall be responsible for investigating and providing a full roadway width structural section able to accommodate project-generated truck trips. The total costs of investigation and construction, if required based on the investigation, shall be borne upon the project. Monitoring Phase Pre-Construction/Construction Implementing Party Applicant/Contractor Enforcement Agency Public Works/Community Development Department Monitoring Agency Public Works/Community Development Department TRAFFIC-8d Professional Drive—Project Driveway The northbound left-turn Lane at Professional Drive/North McDowell Boulevard shall be designed to accommodate the expected queues. Monitoring Phase Pre-Construction/Construction Implementing Party Applicant/Contractor Enforcement Agency Public Works/Community Development Department. Monitoring Agency Public Works/Community Development Department. TRAFFIC-11a Pedestrian The project 'shall improve pedestrian and bicycle facilities on its frontage with North McDowell Boulevard, and special.care shall be taken to maintain sight distance and to clearly define right- of-way as to reduce potential conflicts between the proposed Class I path and driveways. Monitoring Phase Pre-Construction/Construction Implementing Party Applicant/Contractor Enforcement Agency Public Works/Community Development Department Monitoring Agency Public Works/Community Development Department TRAFFIC-11b Bicycle The project shall improve pedestrian and bicycle facilities on its frontage with North McDowell Boulevard, and special care shall be taken to maintain sight distance and to clearly define right- of-way as to reduce potential conflicts between the proposed Class I path and driveways. Monitoring Phase Pre-Construction/Construction Implementing Party Applicant/Contractor Enforcement Agency Public Works/Community Development Department Monitoring Agency Public Works/Community Development Department TRAFFIC-12 Emergency Access Impacts With the proposed project's addition of a traffic signal at the intersection of Professional Drive/North McDowell Boulevard, emergency vehicle pre-emption shall be provided to mitigate this additional delay experienced by emergency responders along this corridor. Monitoring Phase Construction/Operation Implementing Party Applicant/Contractor Enforcement Agency Public Works/Community Development Department Monitoring Agency Public Works/Community Development Department TRAFFIC-15a Rainer Avenue/Maria Drive The proposed project shall contribute to the City Traffic Impact Mitigation fees for the installation of a traffic signal in the Cumulative plus Project condition at the intersection of Rainier Avenue/Maria Drive. Monitoring Phase Operation Implementing Party Applicant Enforcement Agency Community Development Department Monitoring Agency Community Development Department TRAFFIC-18 Site Access - Various The proposed project shall contribute to the City Traffic Impact Mitigation fees for the installation of intersection improvements, in the Cumulative plus Project condition, at the intersection of Rainier Avenue/North McDowell Boulevard. Further, the project shall conform to the precise plan line to accommodate the number of turn lanes and storage lengths identified • below. • The eastbound left-tum lane at Rainier Avenue/North McDowell Boulevard requires 350 feet(Dual Left-turn Lanes) • The northbound left-turn lane at Rainier Avenue/North McDowell Boulevard requires 600 feet (Dual Left-turn Lanes) • The southbound left-turn lane at Rainier Avenue/North McDowell Boulevard requires 200 feet Monitoring Phase Pre-Construction/Construction Implementing Party Applicant/Contractor Enforcement Agency Public Works/Community Development Department Monitoring Agency Public Works/Community Development Department PUBLIC SERVICES Required Mitigation Measures PS-1 Fire Protection With the proposed project's addition of a traffic signal at the intersection of Professional Drive/North McDowell Boulevard, emergency vehicle pre-emption shall be provided to mitigate this additional delay experienced by emergency responders along this.corridor. Monitoring Phase Construction/Operation Implementing Party Applicant/Contractor Enforcement Agency Public Works/Community Development Department Monitoring Agency Public Works/Community Development Department ,PS-2 Other Public Facilities The,project applicant shall be responsible for investigating and providing a full roadway width structural section able to accommodate project-generated truck trips. The total costs of investigation and construction, if required based on the investigation, shall be borne upon the project. Monitoring Phase Pre-Construction/Construction Implementing Party Applicant/Contractor Enforcement Agency Public Works/Community Development Department Monitoring Agency Public Works/Community Development Department CULTURAL RESOURCES Required Mitigation Measures CULT-1 Archaeological Resources CULT-Ia Prior to excavation and construction on the proposed project site, the prime construction contractor and any subcontractor(s) shall be cautioned at the preconstruction meeting with the City on the legal and/or regulatory implications of knowingly destroying cultural resources or removing artifacts, human remains, bottles, and other cultural materials from the project site. CULT-lb If during any phase of project construction, any paleontological resources are encountered, construction activities, within a fifty-meter radius shall be halted immediately, and the project applicant shall notify the City. A qualified paleontologist (or persons approved by the City) shall be retained by the project applicant and shall be allowed to conduct a more detailed inspection and examination of the exposed resources. During this time, excavation and construction would not be allowed in the immediate vicinity of the find. If any find were determined to be significant by the paleontologist, the City and the paleontologist would meet to determine the appropriate course of action. All paleontological resources recovered from the site would be subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and a report prepared according to current professional standards. CULT-lc If during any phase of project construction, any cultural materials are encountered, construction activities within a fifty-meter radius shall be halted immediately, and the project applicant shall notify the City. A qualified prehistoric archaeologist (as approved by the City) shall be retained by the project applicant and shall be allowed to conduct a more detailed 'insp'ection and examination of the exposed cultural materials. During this time, excavation and construction would not be allowed in the immediate vicinity of the find. If any find were determined to be significant by the archaeologist the City and the archaeologist would meet to determine the appropriate course' of action. All cultural materials recovered from the site would be subject:to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and a report prepared 'according to current professional standards. Additionally, should project-related ground disturbing activities take place as part of the proposed project within the.State right-of-way (ROW) and there is an inadvertent archaeological or burial discovery, in compliance with the California Department of Transportation's Standard Environmental Reference Volume 2, all construction within 50 feet of the find shall cease. The Department's District 4 Cultural Resource Study Office shall be immediately contacted at(510) 286-5618. CULT-1'd If human remains are discovered at the project site during construction, work at the specific construction site at which the remains have been uncovered shall be suspended, and the City of Petaluma and County coroner shall be immediately notified. If the remains are determined by the County coroner to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) shall be notified within 24 hours, and the treatment and disposition of the remains shall adhere to the guidelines of the NAHC. Monitoring Phase Construction Implementing Party Applicant/Contractor/Archaeologist Enforcement Agency Community Development Department Monitoring Agency Community Development Department 9-- 4'9' ATTACHMENT 3 RESOLUTION NO. 2012-01 CITY OF PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL.IMPACT REPORT FOR THE DEER CREEK.VILLAGE PROJECT IS INADEQUATE PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT WHEREAS, the Notice of Preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Deer Creek Village project ("the Project") was mailed to all responsible and affected agencies on March 5, 2010, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section .21080.4 and California Environmental Quality Act-("CEQA") Guidelines Section 15082; and, WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") was prepared for the Plan in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. and CEQA Guidelines Section 15000 et seq., and circulated for public review between March 3, 201'1 and April 18, 201 1 with a notice inviting comments on the Draft EIR given in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15085; and, WHEREAS, the City distributed copies of the Draft''EtR in conformance with CEQA to the public agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to; the project and to other interested persons and agencies and sought the comments of such persons and agencies; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public meeting and hearings on March 22, 2011 to consider the Draft OR; and, WHEREAS, the City Council held a public meeting and hearing on April 18, 2011 to consider the Draft EIR; and, WHEREAS, written and oral comments to the Draft EIR have been received and responses to those comments have been prepared in the form of a Final Environmental Impact Report far the Project ("Final EIR"); and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a noticed public meetings on January 10, 2012, ai which time it considered the Final EIR and accepted public testimony; and, WHEREAS, certain Project impacts will remain significant and unavoidable, even after'the application of all feasible Project mitigation measures io lessen those impacts;including: a) the proposed project's contribution to the cumulative city-wide traffic noise impacts; b) NOx emissions during-grading;.c) Greenhouse gas emissions consistent with the level of emissions found-acceptable'by'the City at the time of adoption of the General Plan; d) increased traffic resulting in intersection LOS and queuing impacts at Corona and McDowell, Corona and Petaluma Boulevard North,.McDdwell and East Washington, McDowell and Rainier; and e) continued LOS F operations on Highway 101 between Pepper Road and Old Redwood and East Washington and Lakeville. WHEREAS; the Project does not have the potential to have a significant adverse impact on wildlife resources as defined in the State Fish and Game Code, either individually or cumulatively, though it is not exempt from Fish and Game filing tees; and, COPY . Original Stored at Th e City of Pet t mr I Planning Commission Resolution No.2012-01 WHEREAS, the Project is not located on a site listed on any Hazardous Waste Site List compiled by the State pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, because of the remaining significant and unavoidable impacts of the Project, The City Council will determine pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) whether the benefits of the Project as proposed make acceptable the remaining significant impacts in the form of a Statement of Overriding Considerations,.prior to any approval of the Project; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the, Planning Commission finds that the Environmental Impact Report for Deer Creek Village-is inadequate based on the following: 1. Failure to reconsider for CEQA purposes whether the Rainier Interchange is a reasonably foreseeable future improvement; and, 2. Failure to study traffic impacts in the cumulative scenario with Rainier Crosstown Connector/Undercrossing only and no Rainier Interchange. ADOPTED this 10th day of January, 2012, by the following vote: {CommfiteeTMember s Aye.._ No Absent: Abstain•, Abercrombie X 2nd Vice Chair Elias X Herries X Chair Johansen X Kearny X Vice Chair Pierre X Wolpert X :Jennifer-Pie` e, ce C r ATIESC APPROVED AS TO FORM: Geoff Bradley, Comrnissio ecretary Leslie Thomsen, Assistant City.Atiorney DOPY - Original Stored at The City of Petaluma 27 Planning Commission Resolution No.2012-01 ATTACHMENT 4 • CITY OF PETALUMA STAFF REPORT Community Development Department,Planning Division, 11 English Street,Petaluma, CA 94952 (707) 778-4301 Fax(707) 778-4498 E-mail:planning@ci.petaluma.ca.us DATE: January 10,2012 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7 TO: Planning Commission PREPARED BY: Heather Hines,Deputy Planning Manager REVIEWED BY: Geoff Bradley, Planning Manager SUBJECT: DEER CREEK VILLAGE North McDowell and Rainier Avenue, APN 008-121-014 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW RECOMMENDATION; Environmental Review: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report based upon the following: 1. The Final Enviromnental Impact Report has been completed in compliance with CEQA and has been presented, reviewed and considered by the Planning Commission. 2. The Final Environmental Impact Report adequately describes the environmental impacts of the proposed project. Staff also recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the MMRP by the CityCouncil. Project Co nSiderations Staff recommends the Planning Commission undertake preliminary Site Plan and Architectural Review,pending final action on the project HR by the City Council. PROJECT"SUMMARY" Project:- Deer Creek Village Intersection of North McDowell and Rainier APN: 007-380-005 and 007-380-027 Project File No: 09-SPC-0091 Project Planner: Heather Hines, Deputy Planning Manager 4 - Project Applicant: Merlone Geier Management Property Owner: Merlone Geier Management 3580 Cannel Mountain Rd., Suite #260 Nearest Cross Streets: North McDowell and Rainier Property Size: 36.55 acres (approx.) Site Characteristics: The project site is at the southwest comer of the intersection of North McDowell and Rainier Avenue. The approximately 36.55 rectangular site is made up of two parcels, a 26.20 acre lot on the north and a 10.35 acre parcel.on.the south. The project site is relatively flat and is currently vacant. Existing vegetation on the site includes grasses, three oak trees, and several redwoods along the south/southwestern boundary. Approximately 0.81 acres of seasonal wetlands are located on the site in separate locations. A drainage Swale,runs through the north portion of the site from east to west (labeled as "Deer Creek" on project plans). Existing Use: . Vacant - Proposed Use: Commercial/Office Current Zoning: MUIB Proposed Zoning: No change General Plan Land Use: Mixed Use Proposed GP Land Use: No change Subsequent Actions after Planning Commission Review: • City Council consideration/action on the Final EIR, Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program • Planning Commission consideration on Site Plan and Architectural Review ;PROJECT DESCRIPTION BACKGROUND Merlone Geier submitted an application for Site Plan and Architectural Review in March, 2009. Based on initial environmental analysis the City determined that a second tier Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was required based on significant traffic impacts identified. .A Notice of Preparation for that EIR was distributed by the City on March 5, 2010, and a Draft EIR was released for the 45-day agency and'public review on March3, 2011. Consistent with the requirements of Resolution No. 2008-189 N.C.S., a Fiscal and Economic Impact Analysis (FEIA) was prepared by the firm Bay Area Economic (BAE), This analysis was considered and.discussed'by-the City Council at a public hearing on May 4, 2009. A lot line adjustment was approved by the City of Petaluma on June 9, 2010. The Lot Line Adjustment modified propertylines to ensure that the proposed building siting would not cross any 4 --2 existing parcel line. The final lot lines have not been recorded with the Sonoma County Recorder and will be a condition of approval for any entitlements for the project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Current Site and Surrounding Uses The project site is located on the southwestern side of the North McDowell/Rainier Avenue intersection. The approximately 36.55-acre site is'rectangular ini shape.and consists of two parcels, a 26.20-acre lot (APN 007-380-027)'on the north end, and'a10.35-acre lot (APN 007-380-005) on the south. The project site is relatively flat with elevations ranging from 20 feet in the western part of the site to 30-feet in the eastern part of the site. The site is currently vacant and sparsely vegetated with grasses, as well asthree oak trees with 50", 30"and 20" diameters: There are also several redwood and other trees along the site's south/southwestern boundary. A total of 0.81 acres of seasonal wetlands are located on the site in separate locations. An ephemeral drainage swale runs through the northern portion of the site from east to west. Although described as `Deer Creek" on project plans, it is not designated as a "blue line" creek on the Cotati USGS 7.5 minute topographic map. The current plan alignment for the Rainier Avenue highway interchange is located at the northwestern corner of the site. The project site is bounded by light industrial and offices uses,including the City of Petaluma Administrative Offices to the northwest/west, single-family residential homes to the northeast/east, Petaluma Valley Hospital to the:east,and office uses to the southeast/south. Lucchesi Park, the Community Center, and the Lynch Creek trail are located south of Petaluma Valley Hospital. Roadways adjacent to the project site include North McDowell Boulevard to the northeast/east, Professional Drive to the east, and Highway 101 to the southwest/west and Lynch Creek Way to the southeast/south.. A portion of the required right of way for the future Rainier Avenue Extension exists immediately North of the site. Proposed Site Design and Project Uses The proposed project is to develop a vacant site with a mix of retail, recreational, and office uses. The proposed project includes the development of 343,998-square feet of commercial land uses consisting of 282,048 square feet of retail, 44,450 square feet of fitness, and 17,500 square feet of services (bank and.office.uses); 1,267 vehicle parking spaces; 150 bicycle parking spaces, and on- site bicycle and pedestrian circulation amenities. The proposed project would set aside approximately 5.44,acres for the future Rainier Avenue interchange and approximately 2.66 acres for theDeer Creekswale enhancement area The 5.44 acres set aside would include open,space,, wetlands, exercise stations and bike and jogging trails which would be considered temporary improvements. Eventual'construction of the Rainier interchange would require removal of the amenities in the 5.44 acre area. The proposed development mix would include four major anchor retail stores, five smaller shops, along with restaurant, pharmacy, and grocery uses-for a total of 282,048 square feet of retail.uses. The project also,proposes,a 44,450 square-foot fitness facility and 17,500 square feet of services, including a bank, medicaLoffice, and professional office space. Proposed building heights range from approximately-20 feet to 45 feet. Building materials would include plaster surfaces with decorative ornamentation, wood trellises, split face block, large panels of glass, cantilevered flat awnings, and projecting cornices. ACCESS, PARKING, & CIRCULATION Access to the project site is proposed via five driveways, which include three on North Mcdowell Boulevard, one on Rainier Avenue and one on Lynch Creek Way. The access point along North Mcdowell Boulevard at Professional Drive would be signalized intersection. Vehicular parking on the project site is proposed in a parking;area in the central portion of the site with smaller parking areas located adjacent to some of proposed shops and offices. A total of 1,267 parking spaces are proposed. A total of 150 bicycle parking spaces are proposed and would be located near each building. The proposed project includes both enclosed and uncovered bicycle parking. The existing transit stop near the northeast corner of the site-would.be improved with a transit shelter and signage and landscaping. The transit stop provides on-site transit access to the proposed project, and will connect to pedestrian and bicycle pathways both within the project and along the North Mcdowell Boulevard project frontage. Deliveries The project has been designed to provide primary truck/delivery access via Lynch Creek Drive to the rear of the project behind the major retail uses. A truck turnaround is proposed between buildings Major I and Major 2-to redirect truck/delivery traffic back to Lynch Creek Drive and out to North Mcdowell Boulevard. This turnaround is intended to serve the bulk of deliveries to the major anchors. Delivery truck traffic would be directed behind each of the buildings. PLAZAS & LANDSCAPING Five plazas are proposed as.gathering places and would be located at the southeast corner of the fitness building, adjacent to the-restaurant building, centered between.Shops A and B, at the southeast corner of Shop C and;centered between offices 1 and 2. Each of the plazas would contain special features (e.g. water feature or raised planter), special paving, benches and/or seat walls, and landscaping. Depending on the tenants around the particular plazas, plaza space may also be used as an outdoor eating area for proposed restaurant. Accent trees, including Crape Myrtle, Chinese Pistache, Flowering Cherry and Callery Pear, would be used to highlight the major site entrances, interior plazas and store entrances. Parking islands landscaped with evergreen or broad spreading deciduous trees, such as Southern Magnolia, Afghan Pine, Chinese Elm, and London Plane Tree, would be located within the parking areas to provide shade:for vehicles and pedestrians. Thereare three mature valley.oak trees at the west end of the drainage swale and approximately 15 valley oak saplings. The mature trees range in size from a trunk diameter of four feet for the largest tree to 1.7 feet for the smallest tree and are approximately 30 feet tall. Although the trees would have to be removed in the future for the.Rainier interchange;they are not proposed to be removed for the proposed project in the.interim. Small flowering accent shrubs (Daylilies, Fortnight Lilies, Groundcover Manzanita;.and Australian Bluebell Creeper) as well as medium-sized shrubs (Rosemary, Heavenly Bamboo, New Zealand Flax, Barberry and Chinese Fringe Flower) are proposed in the various planters around entries and interior plazas. DEER CREEK DELINEATION The Deer Creek Village project proposes to preserve and enhance the Deer. Creek swale by maintaining a 50 foot development buffer on each side of the drainage and planting the resulting 4 - f minimum 100-foot corridor with native trees and shrubs designed to provide natural retention and minimize the rate of'stormwater run-off. Pedestrian walking paths, bicycle trails and exercise stations, as well as outdoor seating and dining areas would be situated adjacent to the enhanced Deer Creek swale corridor. PHASING & SCHEDULE The first stage of the proposed project would include grading of the site, construction of underground improvements, followed by development of the proposed drives, parking, buildings, landscaping, site amenities and traffic signals in the southern portion of the site. Stage 2 of the project would include development of the underground improvements; drives, parking, buildings, and Deer Creek swale enhancements that are proposed in the central portion of the site Finally, the proposed site improvements in the northern portion of the site would be developed as part of Stage 3. Grading is expected to occur over a three to four month period with the remaining Stage 1 activities and each additional stage occumng over three to four months as well, with the exception of approximately 12 months for building construction. The project would be operational 18 to 24 months after Site Plan and Architectural Review approval. 'STAFF.ANALYSIS GENERAL PLAN 2025 The General Plan land use designation for the project site is Mixed-Use. The definition and intent of Mixed Use is as follows: This classification requires a robust combination of uses, including retail, residential, service commercial, and/or offices. Development is oriented toward the pedestrian, with parking provided, to the extent possible, in larger common areas or garages. Maximum FAR including both residential and non-residential uses is 2.5, and maximum residential density is 30 DU/AC. General Plan 2025 policies and goals applicable to the project and consistency findings for them are located within the EIR and discussed in each environmental area(i.e.: Traffic, Noise, Public Utilities, etc.). In addition, the Final EIR, at Topical,Response.4, General Plan Consistency (pp. 11-4 - II-19), and Topical Response_!, Initial Study and Tiering from the General Plan EIR (pp. II-6 -II- 12), provides detailed information on General Plan consistency, which is summarized below. The project site lies within the North McDowell Boulevard Planning Subarea. The General Plan specifically mentions that 15 percent of the subarea is vacant, mostly adjacent to the proposed new Rainier Avenue interchange/underpass and that the vacant lots provide opportunities'for expansion of commercial, office, and light industrial uses along North McDowell Boulevard. The following Goals and Policies are applicable to the project site._ Staff analysis is-included in italics. 1-P-6 Encourage mixed-use development, which include opportunities for increased transit access. The proposed project includes a mix of uses and incorporates new transit.facilities into the site design. The'project would provide direct transit access on the McDowell Boulevard project frontage. In addition, conditions of approval will require that the interim development of Rainier Avenue to the project entrance include development of a cul-de-sac to facilitate safe access to transit buses leaving the City transit center and turning onto North McDowel Boulevard. 1-P-14 Require provision of street trees, landscaping, parking and access features to help integrate land uses and achieve an effective transition between uses of disparate intensities. The project will incorporate street trees.along North McDowell onboth sides of the Class I path to provide buffer and transition. Additionally, native landscaping, pathways, and public art are proposed along the Deer Creek swale to provide an enjoyable pedestrian environment. 2-P-5 Strengthen the visual and aesthetic character of major arterial corridors. The proposed Deer Creek Village project will convert a vacant infill site containing no scenic resources and will strengthen the visual and aesthetic character of the North McDowell corridor through orientation offacadestoward the street, landscape buffer from parking areas, construction of a 10 foot wide Class I pathway along the North McDowell frontage and installation of street trees and other landscaping. 2-P-87 Where applicable, provide a transition in scale along North McDowell Boulevard between the industrial uses on the west side,of the boulevard and the residential developments to the east, while allowing new development at intensities reflective of enhanced connections provided by the new cross-town connector and interchange at Rainier Avenue. The commercial nature of the proposed Deer Creek Village will provide a transition between industrial uses to the north; office uses to the south, and residential uses to the east. The design of the project'itsellfprovides a transition,between the larger major tenant buildings along the Highway 101 frontage and the smaller individual single story buildings closer to North McDowell. The project is also well suited in intensity to the future interchange and cross town connector and has been designed to respect these future enhanced connections. 2-P-88 Provide enhanced pedestrian and bicycle network connections between the industrial, commercial, and residential clusters. Significant enhanced pedestrian and bicycle connections are incorporated into the project design, including a Class I path along the McDowell frontage, pathway.connection to Lynch Creek, a new signalized intersection and crosswalk at McDowell and Professional, and partial development of Rainier Avenue to city standards. The project's pedestrian connectivity through the site.improves the network between commercial,office, residential and'medical uses in this area of the McDowell corridor. 2-P-89 Allow for a range of uses, including commercial, office, and residential, in the mixed use area on the southwest corner of North McDowell and Rainier Avenue. The range of uses incorporated into the Deer Creek Village project include retail,financial service, fitness/health facility, building and landscape materials sales, minor medial services, groceries, professional office, and general retail. This range of uses is consistent with permitted uses in the MU1B zoning district; complies with General Plan Policy 2-P-8 specific to this site and complies with-the-range of uses as sought in the Mixed Use land use designation in the General Plan 2025. 4-P-6 Improve air quality through required planting of trees along Streets and Within park and urban separators, and retaining tree and:plant resources aiongthe.river and creek corridors. The Deer Creek Village project includes enhancement-and preservation of the Deer Creek swale though native planting, creation of development buffer on both side of the swale, and pedestrian and bicycle paths adjacent to either side of the 100 foot buffer. 4-P-9 Require a percentage of parking spaces in large parking lots'or garages to provide electrical vehicle charging facilities. The FEIR for the Deer Creek Village project includes mitigation measure AQ-4-which requires.that a percentage of parking space's provide electrical vehicle charging facilities, Consistent with the standards applied to the East Washington Place project and in keeping with recommended standards published in Ready; Set, Charge, California!A Guide to EV--Ready Communities, Staff recommends that 1% of the onsite parking spaces (approximately 12) provide electrical vehicle charging facilities and that :these facilities be located at various locations within the larger development.. Ready, Set, Charge, California! provides public agencies throughout California with guidance on how to advance community electric Vehicle fEV) readiness, including standardized policies, ordinances and best-practices: The document was' prepared by Association of Bay Area Governments (ABA G) and Bay Area Climate'Collaboration. 4-P-16 To reduce combustion emissions during construction and demolition phases, the contractor of future individual project shall encourage the inclusion in construction contract of specific requirements. All of the measures outlined in 4-Pr16 have been incorporated into Mitigation Measure AQ-1 for grading/construction impacts in the Deer Creek Village FEIR. Additionally, this mitigation measure includes compliance with relevant Bay Area Air Quality Management District construction standards. 5-P-11 Require proposed..development to assist, in addition to seeking other funding sources, in,the funding and construction of the following improvements: Rainier Avenue extension and interchange. The applicant will be required to pay all traffic impact fees, reserve plan line right-of-way as adopted'by the City of Petaluma, and install improvements to Rainier Avenue between the'proposed interchange and North McDowell Boulevard in proportion to the project's direct impacts On Rainier Avenue. 5-P-16 If Ciass'11 bike lanes.;are not possible on streets designated as such on the Bicycle,Facilities Map, those streets shall 'become enhanced Class III bike routes using such markings as edget striping, shared lane markings, and signs. North McDowell is indicated for proposed Class II on street, striped bicycle facilities. A Class I path is proposed instead to maintain consistency with the existing facility on the east side of McDowell. The variation was presented to the Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee and was found to be consistent with the Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan and determined to be an enhanced amenity along the McDowell frontage. 5-P-23 Require the provision of pedestrian site access for all new development. The proposed project incorporates and enhances pedestrian access to and throughout the site through the use of differentiated paths, crosswalks,four sided architecture, landscaping public art, and the Deer Creek swale improvements. 5-P-31 Make bicycling and walking more desirable by providing or requiring development to provide.necessary support facilities throughout the city. The proposed project has incorporated support facilities into the site design to make bicycling and walking more desireable. In addition to pathways and crosswalks, the Deer Creek Village project includes secure bicycle parking, public plazas/gathering spaces, drinking fountains, benches, and public art throughout the site: •Additionally, shower facilities consistent with the requirements of the IZO have been conditioned. 6-P-29 Integrate arts into the planning process in the City and encourage the arts as an integral part of development proposals and capital improvement projects. The applicant has integrated public art into the planning and design process for the Deer Creek Village project. The applicant has consulted with the Petaluma Public Art Committee (PPAC) to gain feedback on the conceptual art program for the development and is continuing to develop the overall proposal incorporating the input of the PPAC. 6-P-30 Place public art in areas that are interactive and accessible:to the public and at the City's gateways. Public art consistent with the requirements of Chapter 18 of the IZO will be incorporated throughout the site, with larger pieces incorporated into.pUblic plazas and gathering spaces and an art walk along the deer creek.swale to maximize interactivity and accessibility to the public. 7-P-19 Maintain a four minute travel time for a total of 6-minute response time for emergencies within the City. As discussed in detail in FEIR Topical Response 11: Emergency Access Impacts, the addition, of project-generated trips is not expected to cause a reduction in travel speeds sufficient to cause • significant delays in emergency vehicles. Additionally, Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-12 requires that emergency vehicle pre-eruption be provided at the proposed traffic signal at the interseciton of Professional Drive and North McDowell Boulevard. The City of Petaluma has also recently been awarded a Transportation Fund for Clean Air grant to coordinate and optimize traffzcsignals on North McDowell Boulevard. That work is anticipated to be completed by the end of 2012. 8-P-36 Require development on sites greater than ''A acre in size to demonstrate no new increase in peak day storniwater runoff, to the extent deemed practical and feasible. The FEIR includes in-depth hydrology analysis to ensure that all stormwater runoff meets the required standards. 8-P-38 All development activities,shall be c"on"structed and,maintained in accordance with Phase 2 National Pollutant Discharge Elmination System permit requirements. The project will be conditioned to require that all sotrm water systems and calculations include detention and treatment systems that meet the requirements of the NPDES, City of Petaluma Phase II Storm Water Regulations, and including Attachment'4 requirements for post construction storm water runoff. 9-P-1 Retain and attract `basic' economic activities that bring dollars,into the local economy by exporting products and services. The Deer Creek Village project proposes a center providing a variety of uses to meet commerical and service needs of East Petaluma, including local demands for goods and services. Additionally, the proposed addition of building'and landscape materials sales meets a significant unmet need of the community. As discussed in the City's retail leakage study, the Deer Creek Village FEIA, and the Urban Decay Analysis included in the DEIR all identify a significant leakage due to the absence of a home improvement store in Petaluma. This addition to Petaluma's economic Ease will generate revenue for the city to sustain and expand city services. The project site is not within-the;Airport Influence Area for Petaluma Municipal Airport The project site is not within the boundary of the Central Petaluma Specific Plan (CPSP). The project is not within the Petaluma Community Development Commission Redevelopment Area. IMPLEMENTING ZONING ORDINANCE (IZO) The project site is within the MU I B zoning district. All of the proposed uses (general retail, building and landscape materials sales - indoor, restaurant, bank — financial services, medical services — minor, fitness/health facility, groceries/specialty foods, and office) are permitted uses within the MU1B. The project is a conforming project and SPAR is its only required land use entitlement. Parking Table 11.1 in the Implementing Zoning Ordinance outlines minimum on-site parking°requirements for specific ,use types. Some of the specific uses included in the proposed Deer Creek Village project,such as pharmacy,building and landscape materials sales, and fitness/health facility are not clearly identified as separate uses for the purposes of parking requirements. Staff has grouped both of these use type under the general retail requirement of 1 space per 300 square feet of gross floor area. Consistent with IZO"Section 11.030, when more than one use is located on a site the number of parking spaces provided shall be equal to the sum of the parking requirements for each use The IZO does not-,have specific parking requirements for shopping centers or specific allowances for combined shopping center parking facilities. The required number of parking spaces may be modified under specific circumstances, such as allowing compact spaces, retirement housing or when a common off-street parkng facility is located within 300-feet of the uses served. None of 4 - t9 these circumstances apply. Any other modification to reduce required parking requires approval of a variance and the state required findings. • As outlined in the following summary table, approximately 1,174 parking spaces are required to meet minimum parking requirements as outlined in the IZO. Staff has estimated 170 restaurant seats for an approximately 6,500 square foot restaurant, recognizing that this number could vary slightly depending on the specific tenant for the pad. :1J9e. ' e�. . . +'°,• yIZ ;Re mrement`�'a h �. wit. r .. ,. a q Squarej>"ootage .-rar k ,Mt� IrRegwredia ,. General.Retail 1 space/300 sq ft Shopes: 31,300 sq ft 104 spaces Major,Tenants: 189;944 sq ft 633 spaces Garden.Center: 31,384.sq ft 105 spaces _ Pharmacy: 14,820.sq ft 49 spaces Fitness Center: 44,450 sq ft 148 spaces Office 1 space/300 sq ft Prof Office: 7,500 sq ft 25 spaces Medical Srvc Minor 1 space/200 sq ft Medical: 5,000 sq ft 25 spaces Bank 1 space/300 sq ft Bank: 5,000 sq ft 17 spaces Restaurant 1 space/2.5 seats Restaurant: 6,500 sq ft 68 spaces (170 seats) TOTAL 335;898 sq ft >1,174 spaces As proposed, the Deer Creek Village project includes 1,268 parking spaces; which is approximately 94 spaces more than the minimum requirements. The IZO does not include maximum parking requirements. However, there is language in the General Plan (Policy 5-P-13) that encourages reduced parking for mixed use development. Consistent with this direction, Staff recommends reducing surface parking to the spaces required by the IZO for the proposed breakdown of uses. Pedestrian and Bicycle Parking and Circulaton The project has been designed to provide'a network of pedestrian and bicycle paths to serve both the internal project area and to connect to existing facilities in the surrounding neighborhoods. Pedestrian walkways throughout the project include crosswalks and specialized paving. Pedestrian and bicycle circulation within the project site is emphasized along the front street within the project, connecting to major tenants at the rear of the site, along the deer creek buffer zone, and connecting with Lynch Creek Drive at the back of the project. Additionally, off site improvements to the larger pedestrian and,bicycle circulation network include a ten foot Class I path along North McDowell and frontage improvements along Rainier Avenue to the project entrance. Requirements for bicycle parking and shower facilities are called out in Chapter 11.of the IZO. The proposed project, plans incorporate 150 bicycle racks, including 80 covered and 70 uncovered, which exceeds the requirement for the number of bicycle parking to be at least 10% of the required autombile parking spaces. The proposed project includes shower facilities; however the four proposed shower facilities do not meet the full requirement of the IZO. Table 11.2 of the IZO outlines employee shower requirements for. new buildings based on the type of use and size of building: The following summary outlines the requirements for the Deer Creek Village Project. Staff recommends that the project be conditioned to provide employee showers consistent with the requirements of the IZO. 4 - I0 .. m;y .. �,. - �' .rc->`'#xy, ,nvu ea+.. - .�rva:ma,"es lit 9°1G Useif1Fype� x„�i ,$quare;i.00tag Sll Show,erspRequtred Rc+4. Grocery Retail 8,100 sgft 0 Fitness Recreation 44,450 sq ft 0 (included) Shop D Retail 6,000 sq ft 0 Bank Financial:Services 5,000 sq:ft 0 Restaurant A Eating Establishment 6,500 sq ft 0 Shop E Retail 10,000 sq ft 1 Shop A Retail 5,500 sq ft 0 Shop B Retail 5,500 sq ft 0 Pharmacy Retail 14,820 sq ft 1 Shop C Retail 4,300 sq ft 0 Professional Office Offices 7,500 sq ft 0 Medical/Office Medical/Office 5,000 sq ft 0 Major 4 Retail 18,500 sq ft 1 Major 3 Retail 25,250 sq ft 2 Major 2 Retail 25,250 sq ft 2 Major 1 Retail 120,944 sq ft 4 Total. 11 showers required The proposed project was brought before the Pedestrian.and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PBAC) on.July2009, December 2009, January 2010 and May 2010 to discuss the project and incorporate feedback. On June 9, 2010 the PBAC finalized comments and proposed conditions of approval (Attachment6), acknowledging the applicants' efforts to meet with the committee and commending the applicant team for listening to and incorporating comments froth the committee. Although most of the recommended comments from the PBAC have been incorporated into the Draft Conditions, there are a couple conditions that necessitate discussion. Under "Class 11 Bicycle Facilities" the PBAC recommends that Class II bike lanes be striped on both sides of Lynch Creek Way. This would require elimination of on street parking on Lynch Creek Way. Neither the General Plan 2025 nor the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan include a proposal for defined bicycle facilities on Lynch Creek Way. The Planning Commission may wish to discuss whether the benefit of Class II bike lanes on Lynch Creek Way outweighs the benefit of on street parking in the business park neighborhood. The second item under the "Class II Bicycle Facilities" subheading recommends a condition that Class II bikelanes,be in installed along the entire project frontage on Rainier Avenue. As proposed and conditioned the,applicant will be responsible for installing Class II bike lanes on the south side of Rainier Avenue from North McDowell Boulevard to the point of project access. This follows standard street, frontage requirements associated the proposed project. When the full Rainier extension is completed, Class II bike lane will be installed along both sides of Rainier consistent with the General Plan 2025 and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Most of the recommendations under the subheading "Incentives to Walk/Bicycle/Transit to Work" have already'been incorporated as mitigation measures under AQ-4 of the FEIR. This is consistent with state law that allows imposition of measures on new development to reduce vehicle trips under CEQA to mitigate impacts. These mitigation measures relate to transit/carpool/alternative fuel 11 transportation and include preferential parking for carpool and vanpool vehicles, promotion of transit use through providing transit information and incentives to employees, installation of electrical vehicle charging facilities, and prioritized parking for hybrid vehicles. Thereare however limits within state law on imposition of employee transportation management programs. This is echoed in Petaluma Municipal Code Section 11.90.010 (Trip Reduction Ordinance Program) which states that "the passage of Senate Bill 437 in February 1996, prohibits any public agency from requiring employers to implement an employee trip reduction program unless required by the federal government. Participation in,this program is voluntary". Based on these, Staff recommends modifying,the language proposed by PBAC with regard to a transportation coordinator to read, "The applicant shall be encouraged to provide a document to the city naming a designated transportation coordinator and describing specific incentives for employees to walk, bicycle, or take transit, thereby encouraging.alternatives to driving cars to this site. Examples include lending bicycles for short errands, monetary or other rewards for not driving, discounts for bicycling, formation of groups of employees who pledge to bicycle, walk, carpool, or ride transit at least once a week, etc. Applicant shall comply with Municipal Code Chapter 11.90." Public Art The proposed project is subject to the requirements of Chapter 18 of the 1ZO to either pay an in lieu fee or incorporate public art into the project at a value of 1% of the construction costs of the project. Consistent with these requirements, the applicant has indicated their intention to incorporate public art into the Deer Creek Village Project. On June 22, 2011, the applicant niet with the Petaluma Public Art Committee to present the conceptual art proposal, including introduction to work of the specific artist with whom Merlone Geier is consulting to develop a public art palette for the project. The PPAC provided feedback to the applicant, including their desire to see a rotating local art walk incorporated into the pedestrian walkway along the Deer Creek swale. The applicant has indicated a willingness to explore this option and will continue their creation of a public art proposal to meet the requirements of the IZO. Staff recommends that the applicant consult with the PPAC in finalizing the public art proposal and receive feedback prior to submitting as part of building permit application. Height Maximum building heights for the MU1B zoning district are 30 feet (Tabel 4.10) with a foot note that allows increased height up to 45 feet when a building is set back,more than 30 feet from' an abutting property line. This,exception allows one additional foot of height with each additional foot of setback over 30 feet to a maximum 45 feet. All buildings along the North McDowell Boulevard frontage are,within the standard 30 foot hieght limitation, except for Shop D, which has a maximum height of 33 feet, but is setback approximately 37 feet from the front property line. The Major Tenant 1 building is the tallest proposed building with a building height of 45 feet to the top of the gable parapet detail. The other major tenant spaces are proposed at a maximum.height of 35 feet to the tallest roof detail. The major tenant spaces are at the 101 side of the project and set back more than 500 feet from North McDowell. Therefore the proposed heights are consistent with the requirements for the MU1B zoning district. 412' Signs The applicant submitted a sign program that 'staff. is reviewing for compliance with IZO requirements. Staff-will include sign program with recommendations with the final SPAR before the Planning Commission. SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW GUIDELINES Prior to SPAR approval the Planning Commission must make the following findings as outlined in Section 24.010 of the IZO. Initial staff analyis is shown in italics. The project includes the appropriate use of quality materials and harmony and propotion of the overall design. The proposed project uses a variety of exterior materials, including stone, wood, metal, glass, plaster, tile, and split face C'MU to provide visual interest and differentiation within the large development. Detailing through the use of different,roof features, awnings, trellises, and finishes and accents further develop the overall design intention for the,shopping center. All buildings include four sided architecture to ensure that the both towards frontages such as North McDowell and interior'Within the development and between individual buidings. The architectural style is appropriate for the projecttand compatible with the overall character of the neighborhood. The architectural style of the proposed project provides transition between existing industrial development to the north, officehnedical'uses to the south, and residential development to-the east. Additionally, the tranistion of the architectural style and massing from the larger tenant buildings closest to Highway 101 to the smaller individual structures closer to the McDowell frontage provide transition within the development. The intensity of the proposed project and the architectual style and siting has also been,designed to enhance the future Rainier interchange and undercrossing connections. The siting of the structure(s) on the property is in harmony with siting of other structures in the immediate neighborhood. The siting of structures within the proposed Deer Creek project has been designed to transition from larger buildings closer to Highway 101 to smaller,more pedestrian oriented buildings closer to McDowell and Rainier. Additionally, structures havee been sited so as not to overwhelm existing office development to the south by providing parking and.landscaping buffers. The siting and grouping:of buildings-along the north/south spine in.the.eastern portion of the site brings structures closer to 'the road to create more of a neighborhood street effect as opposed to a sprawling suburban shopping center. The size;'location, design, color, number, lighting, and materials of all signs and outdoor structures are appropriate the project's.surroundings. A sign program for the shopping center is being reviewed and will be included with the final SPAR review for Commission consideration. Landscaping shall be in keeping with the character or design of the site. If — is Landscaping has been appropriately used throughout the project to provide buffers, soften edges, break up large parking areas, and enhance pathways and plazas/gathering space. Additionally, street trees along McDowell buffer the development from the busy arterial and enhance the Class I path along'the frontage. Native landscapingis focused Within the 100 foot wide Deer Creek buffer zone and enhances the experience along the pedestrian pathways alongthe edges of this linear open space. EXisting trees along the Highway 101 corridor will not be removed as part of this project. The overall.landscaping concept'orients and connects the large development, and enhances the architectural design and siting. Ingress, egress, internal circulation for bicycles and autombiles, off-street autombiles and parking facilities and pedestrian ways shall be designed to promote safety and convenience and shall conform to City Standards. Plans pertaining to pedestiran, bicycle, or automobile circulation shall be routed to the PBAC for review and recommendation. The project has been designed to provide safe.and.convenient access to all modes of transportation, including bicycles, pedestrians, transit riders, and clutoniobiles. New transit facilities are proposed to meet City standards. A Class I path is proposed across the North McDowell frontage, consistent with existing facility on the east side of McDowell. A pathway across the rear of the development connects with Lynch Creek Way. Differentiated pathways, sidewalks, and crosswalks are located throughout the development to connect the project to off-site circulation. The project's pedestrian connectivity through the site improves the network between commercial, office, residential and medical uses in this area of the McDowell corridor. Project plans were routed to the PBAC and the applicant engaged in°dialogue with the committee at several meetings in 2009 and 2010. The PBAC issued the attached memo commending the applicant for working with the committee and recommending approval of the project with conditions of approval, most of which have been included in draft conditions (Attachment 6). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) advising that an EIR was to be prepared for the project was sent to the State Clearinghouse for distribution and posted with the County Clerk on March 5, 2009. After receiving the NOP, all responsible or trustee agencies had 30 days in which to•comment on how, in terms of scope and content, the DEIR should treat environmental information related to the agency's statutory responsibilities. The City also considered comments from individuals on the NOP. A Draft EIR was then prepared, and made available for public comment on March 3, 2011. A notice of availability was published in the Argus Courier on March 3rd and sent to residents and property • owners within 1,000 feet of the subject property, as well as interested parties, and individuals who submitted comments on the NOP. More thansixtycomments'were-received during the 45-day public comment period. Copies of all written comments received on the Draft EIR, and a record of oral comments made at the Planning Commission ,meeting on March 22, 2011, and the City Council meeting on April 18, 2011 are contained within the Final EIR. Additionally, the FEIR includes responses to all comments received as well as 15 topical responses on issues that were repeated in multiple comments. To provide additional information partly in response to comments, an updated noise analysis was completed and,an updated site visit performed to verify that there had been no change in conditions since the previous biology analysis was conducted. These documents are included in the appendices of the FEIR. No new impacts which required recirculation were identified as part of the responses to comments See Topical Response 3, Recirculation of the FEIR, for additional detail. At a noticed public meeting; the City Council will consider whether to certify the Final EIR and take other CEQA related actions that would allow the Planning Commission to take action on the Site Plan and Architectural Review for the project. If the proposed project is approved, recommended mitigation measures will be incorporatedinto the conditions of approval, unless the City Council identifies alternative mitigation measures or determines that mitigation is not feasible and adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Impacts and Mitigation Measures The EIR has identified several environmental impacts of the proposed project. An impact is a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in:any ofthe,physical conditions within the area affected by the project. Most of the impacts identified as potentially significant can be reduced to a less-than-significant level with the incorporation of various mitigation measures. Several significant and unavoidable impacts are cumulative impacts identified in General Plan 2025, and related General Plan EIR analysis is relied on for the project EIR. See also, FEIR Topical Response 1, Initial Study and Tiering from the General Plan EIR. Mitigation measures have been identified in the EIR, will be incorporated into any project approval findings and will be implemented through a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), if the project is approved. Impacts that,are Significant-and Unavoidable The EIR also identified areas where the proposed project would cause significant environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant impact. These significant unavoidable impacts relate to air quality/greenhouse gas emissions, traffic and transportation, and cumulative traffic/rail noise at General Plan-.buildout. Several of the significant unavoidable impacts identified in the EIR are cumulative impacts identified in the General Plan 2025. Even though a statement of overriding considerations was adopted for these impacts when the General Plan was adopted, a separate statement of overriding considerations based on benefits and contributions to impacts from this project=would be required as part of project approval. Impact Noise-3i The evaluation of the project's contribution to cumulative effects relies on the evaluation of noise effects in the EIR for General Plan 2025, which determined that at General Plan buildout, significant and unavoidable impacts would result from traffic-related noise and future rail service. No feasible mitigation measures were identified that would reduce the proposed project's contribution to this cumulative city-wide impact to less than considerable, and thus this significant and unavoidable impact remains applicable to the proposed project. Impact AQ-l: Construction related activities associated with the project would result in dust and equipment exhaust- emissions that could at times, affect adjacent residential uses including the single family residential homes to the northeast/east of McDowell.Boulevard and/or the Petaluma Valley Hospital to the east on Professional Drive, and could contribute to deterioration of local air 4 - I quality. Construction emissions for the proposed project were calculated with the URBEMIS2007 model assuming the two separate phases for construction. During grading, the first year of construction, average daily emissions would exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Management District • (BAAQMD) thresholds. The City's General Plan 2025 includes a chapter containing air quality policies and programs that seek to maintain or improve Petaluma's air quality. After General Plan approval and certification of the General Plan EIR, which found certain cumulative air quality and GHG impacts to be significant and unavoidable, BAAQMD adopted new CEQA Guidelines establishing thresholds of significance which were used to update the General Plan air quality and greenhouse gas emissions contributions from this project. A mitigation measure outlining ways in which the project could reduce air pollutant emissions from grading and construction impact is discussed in the DEIR. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would reduce dust.of PM u) emissions to a less-than-significant level However NO emissions during grading would remain above the BAAQMD threshold and therefore the impact remains significant and unavoidable, although confined to the construction period. Impact AQ-4: The project would cause an increase in GHG emissions of 8,707 metric tons Of CO2e annually, which exceeds the 2010 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines "bright line" threshold of 1,100 metric tons per year. Therefore the significance is evaluated by assessing the GHG emissions of 13.5 metric tons per year of CO2e per capita, which exceeds the BAAQMD significance threshold of 4.6,metric tons per capita. Anticipated operational emissions for the project were calculated using URBEMIS2007 to provide CO2e emissions in metric tons per year. The calculation included missions from transportation, area sources, electricity consumption, natural gas consumption, electricity usage associated with water usage and wastewater discharge, and solid waste land filling and transport. Mitigation Measure AQ-4 outlines measures to reduce air pollutant emissions both from vehicle trips and area sources. Although implementation of the following measures would reduce per capita CO2e emissions to 13.0 metric tons per year, it remains above the BAAQMD per capita significance threshold of 4.6 and therefore the impact remains significant and unavoidable. Greenhouse gas emissions are by nature cumulative:impacts. The resulting impact determined by this DEIR is the same level of significance as determined in the General Plan EIR for greenhouse gas emissions, but resulted from using the more specific BAAQMD 2010 CEQA Guidelines methodology. The conclusion is that the project does make a considerable contribution(in CEQA terminology) to the significant and unavoidable impact determined to occur with General Plan buildout. Impact Traffic-2b: Intersection operations at East Washington Street and North McDowell Boulevard were found toaexceed the threshold of significance'under.existing plus project conditions. No feasible mitigation was identified to, reduce the impact to less-than-significant. The impact remains significant and'unavoidable. This impact goes away in the cumulative scenario. Impact Traffic-3b: Vehicle queuing at the intersection of East Washington Street and North McDowell Boulevard in the southbound right-turn lane was found to exceed the thresholds of significance under existing plus project conditions. Although construction of additional lane 4 - 1 (p storage length would reduce the project's contribution to significant impacts, available right-of-way is not available for correction, because of the built-out neighborhood along North McDowell Boulevard. Therefore, no feasible mitigation was identified and the impact to this intersection remains significant and unavoidable. Impact Traffic-5a: Intersection operations at Corona Road and North McDowell Boulevard under existing plus pipeline plus project conditions result in a significant and unavoidable impact. Impact Traffic-5b: Intersection operations at Corona Road and Petaluma Boulevard North under existing plus pipeline plus project conditions exceed thresholds of significance and result in a significant and unavoidable impact. This impact goes away in the cumulative scenario. Impact Traffic-5d: Intersection operations at East Washington and North McDowell Boulevard exceed thresholds of significance,under existing plus pipeline plus project conditions and result in a significant and unavoidable impact. Impact Traffic-6: Vehicle queuing at the East Washington Street and North McDowell Boulevard southbound right-turn lane would exceed storage capacity under existing plus pipeline plus project conditions. This impact remains significant and unavoidable with no feasible mitigation identified. Impact Traffic-7: The proposed project is expected to increase traffic volumes on Highway 101 segments (Pepper Road to Old Redwood Highway and from East Washington Street to Lakeville Highway) that are expected to operate at LOS F without the project by more than one percent of the segment's theoretical capacity: No feasible mitigation was identified to reduce the impact to less- than-significant and therefore the impact remains significant and unavoidable. Impact Traffic-15b: Intersection.operations at Rainier Avenue and North McDowell Boulevard will exceed thresholds of significance under cumulative plus project conditions, resulting in a significant LOS impact. No feasible mitigation was identified. Impacts to this intersection remain significant and unavoidable. Impact Traffic-15c: Intersection operations at Rainier Avenue and project access would result in delay to right-turn egress movements from the proposed project. No vehicle delays on Rainier Avenue under the cumulative project scenario are anticipated. The construction of the Rainier Avenue cross-town connector and U.S. 101 and Rainier Avenue Interchange will limit access along the project frontage and therefore a traffic signal is not feasible mitigation:for the impact. Access shall be limited to right-turn in and right-turn out when Rainier is extended (mitigation'measure Traffic-8b). Impacts to the intersection remain significant and unavoidable. Impact Traffic-15e: Intersection operations at Corona Road and North McDowell Boulevard are anticipated to continue to exceed thresholds of significance under the cumulative plus project conditions: Construction of additional travel lanes at this intersection conflicts with the General Plan policy to avoid wider, more automobile-oriented intersections in favor of more pedestrian, bicycle, and transit-friendly designs. A statement of overriding considerations was adopted by the City for this intersection for the cumulative condition as part of the General Plan EIR certification. Impacts to this intersection remain significant and unavoidable. Impact Traffic-16: As described above under existing,plus project conditions, vehicle queuing at the intersection of East Washington Street and North McDowell Boulevard (southbound right-turn lane) exceeds thresholds of significance and remains significant and unavoidable under cumulative plus project conditions. Impact Traffic-17: Northbound U.S. 101 at previously discussed segments (Pepper to Old Redwood Highway and East Washington to Lakeville Highway) will continue to operate at LOS F with volumes in excess of 10 percent of the operating capacity. No feasible mitigation measures were identified and therefore the impact would be significant unavoidable under cumulative conditions. Overriding Considerations CEQA Section 15091 requires public agencies to make one or more written findings for each of the significant environmental effects identified in an EIR prior to project-approval. The findings must be supported by substantial evidence in the record and the agency must present a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding. Where potential environmental impacts have been identified as significant and unavoidable, CEQA requires decision-makers to balance the economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the project against the unavoidable project-related environmental effects when determining whether or not to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social,technological or other benefits of the proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, then those environmental effects may be considered "acceptable". In order to approve a project-that will result in significant adverse environmental effects identified in the EIR that cannot be reduced to a level of less than significant, the City Council, must state in writing the specific reasons to support the project approval based on a balancing of project benefits against impacts remaining significant ad identified in the Final EIR and/or other information in the record. This is formally known as a"Statement of Overriding Considerations" and is made pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093. If findings of overriding consideration are not adopted, the City cannot approve the proposed project. Planning Commission Hearing om the FEIR Per the City's CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission requested that the FEIR return to the commission for consideration. The commission's discussion is expected to focus on the changes in the DEIR and the responses to public comments on the DEIR, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15089(b). The Planning Commission will comment on the adequacy of the document and decide whether or not to recommend the document to the City Council for certification. PUBLIC COMMENTS On December 21, 2011 a Notice of Availability of the FEIR and public'hearing before the Planning Commission was sent to residents and property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject property, as well as interested parties who requested notification, and all individuals who commented on the Notice of Preparation. The public notice was published in the Argus Courier on December 28, 2011. Copies of the FEIR have been made available at the Petaluma Library, the Community Center, City Hall, and on the City's website. Additionally, copies of the documents have been made available for purchase by the public for the cost of printing. Gri On Saturday, August 6, 2011 a neighborhood workshop was hosted by the California Infill Builders Association, Sonoma County Conservation Action, and'Greenbelt Alliance without City sponsorship or staff participation. The workshop sponsors!submitted,presumably as a comment on the FEIR, a workshop Summary Report that proposes a different project for the site that would require amendments to the General Plan and IZO (Attachment 7). Written comment from Caltrans was received on January 3, 2012 in response to the distribution of the FEIR (Attachment 8). For clarification, although the EIR used traffic counts from 2007 to more realistically estimate traffic volumes despite the economic downturn, the pipeline scenario also included anticipated traffic volumes from projects approved/built between 2007 and the date of the DEIR, including East Washington Place. Staff is in the process of further dialogue with Caltrans to discuss the items in their letter and will be prepared to"discuss in more detail at the Planning Commission hearing. RECOMMENDATION Environmental Review: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council certify the Final Environmental Impact Report based upon the following: 1. The Final Environmental Impact Report has been completed in compliance with CEQA and has been presented, reviewed and considered by the Planning Commission. 2. The Final Environmental Impact Report adequately describes the environmental impacts of the proposed project. Staff also recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the MMRP by the City Council. Project Considerations: Staff recommends the Planning Commission undertake preliminary Site Plan and Architectural Review, pending final action on the project EIR by the City Council. ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings for,Site Plan and Architectural Review 2. DRAFT Conditions of Approval for Site Plan-and Architectural Review 3. Draft Resolution recommending to the City Council for Certification of the Environmental Impact Report and Adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring Program 4. Final Environmental Impact Report (previously delivered to Planning Commissioners) 5. MitigationMontinoring and Reporting Program (previously deliveredto Planning Commissioners) 6. PBAC Comments, dated June 2010 7. Summary Report: Deer Creek Neighborhood Workshop, August 6, 2011 8. California Department of Transportation comment letter, January 3, 2011 9. 11"x 17" Site, Architectural, and Landscape Plan Set 10. Full sized plan sets k - 19 • ATTACHMENT 6 From: West Haven (mailto:commOOwesthavenmail.infol Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 1:03 PM To: CDD Subject: Deer Creek Village I have only two thumbs, but both of them are up for Friedman's. Any council Member voting against will lose my vote if standing for re-election. Michael P. Burwen, President West Haven Homeowners Association Petaluma I am using the free version of SPAMfighter. We are a community of' 7 million users fighting; spam. SPAMfighter has removed 1828 of my spam emails to date. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www. spamfighter.com/len The Professional version does not have this message (o - 1 From: I.vicino jmailto:l.vicinoCalcomcast.netl Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 1:04 AM To: CDD Subject: Deer Creek Village Honorable City Council, When are you going to start doing what the citizens of Petaluma want? We don't have our Rainier Crossing, and°we;don'thave Target in our City and now we don't have the Deer Creek Village development. You have been sitting on these projects for a long time,when are you going to do something about it? You are losing revenue and not giving our citizens jobs. These projects would generate revenue for our City. Not only that but the Deeer Creek Village Project and the Target project enoucraged builders to buy property, pay money for something they are not getting. Get off your and give us our projects! Louise Vicino Petaluma Resident From: ZLOTA,PANI jrnailto:zlotapani @yahoo.coml Sent: Wednesday, January' 18, 2012 12:11 PM To: CDD Cc: INFO@DEERCREEKPRO]ECT.COM Subject: DEER CREEK VILLAGE WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO DO TO PETALUMA, GO BY THE WAY OF VALLEJO? REJECT THE PLANNING COMMISSION PROPOSAL. EVERY COUNCIL HAS PLAYED WITH RAINIER INTERCHANGE AND HAS DONE NOTHING TO ADVANCE ITS PROGRESS. I FOR ONE WILL NOT VOTE FOR ANY OF YOU IF YOU DON'T DO SOMETHING TO MAKE PETALUMA A PLACE WHERE PEOPLE WANT TO WORK, LIVE AND SPEND THEIR MONEY. BARBARA L. PADGETT 15 HAVEN DRIVE PETALUMA 38 YR RESIDENT 0 - 3 From: Maryann Hedstrom [mailto:starrbnd @hotmail.coml. Sent: Tuesday,;January 17; 2012.1:57 PM To: CDD Cc: info @deercreekproject.com;.daveglass @comcast.net; teresa4petaluma@comcast.net; councilmemberkearney @me.cor,mike4pet @aol.com; mthealy @sbcglobal.net, councilman.albertson @gmail.com; tiff @tiffanyrenee.com Subject: Deer Creek Village Please reconsideryour'decision regarding the Deer Creek Village Project. As.a 5 year resident of Petaluma, I must admit I'weekly drive to San Rafael or.Rohnert Parkfor my main shopping needs. I would prefer for Petaluma to receive funds from my shopping, but the prices&diversity of goods in Petaluma are not competitive enough to keep my business local. I welcome the potential new vendors to our community,and I hope you will as well. Sincerely, Maryann Hedstrom W ` I Original Message From: Pardini, Anna-Maria (WW Apple Segment Marketing Manager) (mailto:annamaria pardini[ hp.coml Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 10:25 AM To: CDD Subject: Deer Creek Village Hello City Council: Please reject the Planning Commission's decision and give Deer Creek Village the green light. Lets show the world that Petaluma is a town of action, not just endless politics. This is your chance to do something tangible that will give back to all of the people of Petaluma. Sincerely, Annamaria Pardini 11 t5 From: paul frahcis 1mailto:Petalumaneighbors aCyahoo.coml Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 1:51 PM To: ienpierrebetalumaOyahoo.com Cc: petalumaplanning Subject: Deer Creek-Village FEIR Comment Dear Planning Commissioner, This pertains to your inquiry about whether there is a "home improvement/building supplies" retailer in North Marin. Novato Builders Supply: http://hovatobuild'ers.com/ So, the project would not necessarily draw consumers from Marin into Petaluma to buy these goods. If you are considering the viability of this project in terms of"retail needs and revenues"; also consider that Petaluma presently has the following building supply&appliance retailers: OSH Hardware Masselli & Sons Rex/Ace Hardware Peterson Paints K-mart North Bay Kitchen.& Bath Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Paul Francis P.N.A. CC: Jennifer'O'Hagan, Petaluma Planning.Department Please, submit this into the administrative record for Deer Creek/FEIR CO From: suesdarden7-shop(ayahoo.com jmailtoauesgarden7-shop@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 2:00 PM To: CDD Cc: Deer Deer Creek Village Subject: Deer Creek Village I am unable to attend the meeting tonight but feel I should still voice my opinion. I am surprised how long the planning approval process has taken. Because of that, Petaluma lost the chance of having a Lowe's Home Improvement store here in town. Petaluma is in need of some tax revenue which Deer Creek Village would help bring in. I am one of the many unemployed in Petaluma and Deer Creek Village Shopping Center would open up hundreds of jobs. I do most of my shopping in Rohnert Park and Santa Rosa. The only shopping I do in Petaluma is part of my grocery shopping. (Some of my grocery shopping is also done at Costco in Rohnert Park). Petaluma is in need of a good home improvement store. I have found that Orchard Supply does not have a wide enough selection, so I usually shop at Lowe's or Home Depot and would be happy if Friedman's. came to Petaluma. I also would prefer to have a Target or Walmart here in Petaluma. I rarely shop at KMart. The approval process has been drug out way too long! I hope that the City of Petaluma will approve Deer Creek Village to bring in the tax revenue and jobs that we need so much! Thank you, Sue F. (Petaluma resident for 35 years) (P " 1 Original Message From: barryalbert(tomcast.net fmailto`.barryalbertacomcast.net) Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 5:14 'PM To: CDD Subject: Community Development feedback form Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by (barryalbertPncomcast.net) on Tuesday, January 10, 2012 at 19:14:02 First Name: Barry Last Name: Bussewitz Live in: yes comment: yes Subject: : Project Updates —Deer Creek general: I am concerned that the Deer Creek project proposal currently fails to meet our General Plan in several ways. 1. It does not include what the General Plan calls mixed use. 2. Circulation of pedestrians and bicycles throughout the community and along the Lynch Creek path: this is a virtual thoroughfare for many pedestrians and bicycle riders like me. Lynch Creek connects the west side to the hospital and the medical offices in, its vicinity, as well as the two shopping centers nearby on McDowell. Dealing with 'McDowell here is already a deterrent to families and children, and crossing' it (or just using it) on a bike is a challenge to grown men. This Project could and should make this area one in which ALL pedestrians and bicycle riders can circulate with confidence, a family value! 3. Significant mitigations for traffic and water are based on infrastructure that is not there. Is it not that simple? 4. The overall design seems outmoded and quite likely to become a dead dinosaur that we will have to reckon for decades to come. Thank you! Please respond: yes Submit: Submit • Jan. 9, 2012 Dear Ms. Hines, Thank you for the opportunity to provide a comment. I'had:the opportunity to review the original and updated•bidlogical resources'section of the document. In shorty i would encourage the Planning Commission to consider the acreage and location of the Deer Creek site as a potential habitat area with a natural seasonal creek,vernal pools, and mature oaks. This is a property that has been routinely disked with no interface fpr attention to natural resources of annual grassland and`fresh water resources occurring naturally on'the.property. The property'appears to be of significant size to support foraging and movement of any wildlife in the area The description of seven[shallow basins or vernal pools described by Zentner and Zentner as "wet meadows" combined withthe existence of seasonal Deer Creek, a long established and described ephemeral drainage, and the flood plai •element of the property indicate a combination of natural resources thatcouldbe identified,'protected and enhanced. Such habitat could likely support a variety of bird and'other wildlife species, foraging, during migratory season, and seeking fresh water. Itappearethe developer is proposing to eliminate the natural drainage channel of Deer Creek, move it and recreate a drainagechannel. This appears to apply to the.naturally occurring wetlands and vernal pools, as well. Personally; I would caution the Commission in considering any proposal to remove and artificially recreate natural resources.that have been longstanding and occurred naturally, thus comprising a poition.of a larger ecosystem in the annual grassland and oak woodland area, interestingly mirrored with'similar resources on the west side of Highway 101, an area where there appears to have been little disking, with sustained and mature habitat areas. As is characteristic of biotic assessments or biological studies performed by development consultants, the assessment and updated report for the proposed Deer Creek shopping center project comprised walking on a site and looking for plant life or wildlife and researching databases such as the CNDDB. The DFG often reports the CNDDB can be used as a guide, but cannot be relied upon solely or as a primary resource only for determining the presence or absence of special status plant and animal species in a particular area. If the Commission receives input from resident observers or naturalists who"have lived in the area for an extended period of time it seems reasonable to consider this inputto the consideration, as such observers often document sightings over long periods of time. 11;s can add to the depth of the developer's consultants' brief visits and databaseresearch. And it is important to help form awhole picture of the potential for habitat; resident and migrating wildlife, and foraging, as well as connecting areas for wildlife, especially nocturnal species. This property also appears to lend itself to exactly the type of combination of preservation and possible • development'in'the.Sonoma-Co. Water.Agency's search for land in-the Petaluma areaSforverious"sized conservation and water resource projects to help with-rainwater catchment and detention, open space and habitat enhancement, and natural areas for groundwater recharge. The significant impacts of increased human activity and shopping center development on this property should not be underestimated, and designating a large buffer'zone'of open space in relationship to preserving identified existing_natural resources of the creek,vernal pools, open grassland and oaks would appear beneficial to support any respect for and sustainabilityof existing natural resources, with the potential for restoration and enhancement in a natural way. The fact the property owner has chosen to routinely disk the site in a heay disking fashion does not preclude the additional facts•of the apparent natural resources and habitat potential on the property. Restored areas where seasonal wetlands, a longstanding creek, annual grassland providing the potential for foraging and movement, and vernal pools could occur naturally and sustain could lead to significant enhancement of the quality of biological resources in the area. The mature oaks described to exist on the property are also of note for their age and suitable habitat for migrating and resident birds and other wildlife. As described in the biological resources report,the oaks occurring on the Deer Creek site appear to be connected to or relevant for the oak woodland and annual grassland with the Petaluma River traversing on the west of Highway 101 directly and diagonally across from theDeer Creek property. The lack • of disking and relative pristine quality of the oak woodland, grassland,flood plain area and river on the west side of the freeway appear to have led to a rich and diverse habitat area with multiple wildlife species. This observation is supported by.a recent initial avian and wildlife survey checklist, with the first visit completed within the last month. Across the freeway to the east, wherethe property has apparently been routinely and heavilydisked over time, there appears to exist similar topography and resources, including, but not-limited to„Deer Creek, the vernal pools, mature oaks,.and open annual grasslands that, if allowed to remain for groundwater recharge, wildlife movement and foraging, could contribute significantly to the North Petaluma area. Again, if a shopping center development of some form is proposed and approved for the Deer Creek site it would be appear advisable to consider preserving a portion of the property for open space, grassland restoration and preservation„oak preservation, fresh water vernal pool and creek restoration and potential groundwater recharge area if feasible. Other conservation meaures to benefit the City of Petaluma residents could also be considered fora portion of the acreage in the sensitive,identified areas that, if not disked, could recover and, with restoration, flourish for biological resources'likely having not been fully identified through the EIR process. As anaturalist with twelve years of experience in research and monitoring of American Badger in West and Northwest Petaluma, I concur the,likelihood of occurrence of American Badger on the Deer Creek site is low. This is primarlydueto:the highway division of the Deer Creek'property and property to the west. However, the Northwestern Pond Turtle, known to-occur on the west side of the freeway in similar habitat area may likely occur on the Deer Creek property. California Red-Legged Frog could also have the potential to occur, and a more thorough survey may be advisable, in my opinion. The special status avian species, including loggerhead shrike, white-tailed kite, and Jong-billed curlew, among others, in my opinion and based on the beginning avian survey immediately on the west side of the freeway to Deer Creek, are highly like to occur in the area and would benefit from the seasonal fresh water sources, the open grassland and the oak habitat. My primary purpose for providing•this comment is to note that a review of the biological resource survey process and reporting leads to my conclusion that repeated disking of the property could mask the open space values, the annual grassland, and mature oaks for diurnal and nocturnal wildlife species for foraging,and movement as well asthe potential for significant restoration efforts for the naturally occurring creek,vernal pools, grassland and oaks„in conjunction with preserving appropriate'portions of the land'for natural habitat, wildlife movement and water conservation and groundwater recharge. I encourage the'Planning Commission to engage in recommendations that will establish a large buffer zone between any area of the property proposed for the building envelope and to preserve the naturally occuring creek, vernal pools, as much of the open grassland as possible, and the oaks for the benefit of biological resources:and also hydrologic conservation and replenishment, Sincerely, Susan Kirks Petaluma, CA l� - 1 D Original Message From: Francesca Smith fmailto:fvspetaluma0gmail.coml Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 10:34 AM To: CDD Subject: Deer Creek project Dear Council, I support moving forward with this project without further delay. This project is vital to our city's economic future. Sincerely, Francesca Smith 160 Banff Way Petaluma Sent from my iPhone 0 I I P ETA4L,LMA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION 40 Fourth Street - Petaluma, CA 94952 TO: Petaluma Planning Commission no) 11 English Street - Petaluma, CA 94952 i JAN 2012 o RECEIVED RE: "Deer Creek Village" Project, FEIR review �City Attorney �ort`O ee1'05 pm.45,1r s 9e52t+Z£Z/v DATE: January, 7th 2012 sand def,v.4o opt Note: The following are comments regarding the Final Environmental Impact Report of the project known as 'Deer Creek Village" being proposed along North McDowell Blvd. Please, submit my comments into the project's administrative record. Dear Planning Commissioner, The cumulative impacts on our community, of yet again another bigbox project like this is clearly evident. That is why we are gravely disappointed, the FEIR (prepared by WRA consultants) does not adequately address these issues. We are very concerned about the shortsightedness displayed by the City, regarding future planning and General Plan compliance, as this and other large retail projects continue to progress through the approval process. As City Planners, each one of you have an obligation to our community to thoroughly assess the project's impacts. Yet, the preparers of the FEIR have not responded to our comments and concerns with due diligence, as required by CEQA guidelines. This makes it impossible for you as City Planners to properly vet the impacts which concern all of us the most. The applicant and consultants continue to use the argument that a comprehensive impact analysis of their proposal is not required and continue to sidestep their responsibilities by referencing the City's General Plan EIR. This is a preposterous attitude to take, while we know full well that the project does not comply with the policies and overall mission of our General Plan. The FEIR should be rejected,based upon the following reasons: 1) The project does not comply with the policies of the City's General Plan that describe how'development:should proceed at that site. The General Plan envisions a mixed use, pedestrian project at that site. For instance, it even goes into detail about extending Lynch Creek Way North through the site and connecting it to Rainier, a simple planning element to enhance pedestrian/bike mobility, which the project fails to incorporate. r 2) The impact mitigation measures of Petaluma's General Plan, regarding build-out of the site, is dependent upon the feasibility of infrastructure projects (e.g. traffic and water) to be in place sometime in the future. Yet, the city does not have the funding to pay for these projects. In addition, Project(s) Impact Fees do not even come close to paying for infrastructure and city services relevant to the project impacts. Furthermore, as of Jan. 1, 2012, "Redevelopment Agency Funding" has been eliminated. Therefore, what will'be the mechanism to fund the infrastructure to help mitigate the project's impacts? 3) The EIR does not properly address the traffic generated by the project, over 10,000 in/out car trips per day. Because the overall scope and character of the project is auto-centric, we feel the project's poor design has a.direct correlation to its high traffic generation and it's impacts. The project should be redesigned as the General plan intended, as a pedestrian oriented mixed use development, with pedestrian/bike links to surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. This will encourage biking and walking and reduce the overall traffic generated impacts on our community. We look forward to Petaluma's future as a well planned, healthy community. In your roles as City Planners, we expect you to look beyond the scope of one solo decision and consider the overall planning for the future. We expect you to honor the vision presented in our General Plan of a healthy sustainable community, and place the interests & quality of life of those who live in Petaluma above all else. You can do this by rejecting the FEIR for the project, and by recommending that the applicant present alternative proposals that will best meet the policies and programs laid out in Petaluma's General Plan 2025. Respectfully Yours, Paul Francis Petaluma Neighborhood Association • CC: Petaluma;City Manager, John Brown Petaluma City Attorney, Eric Danly Shute Mihaly & Weinberger, Gabe Ross From: annamaria pardini [mailto:amoardini@Vahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday; January 04, 2012 11:39 AM To: CDD;:chris Samson @arquscourier.com Cc: info©deerereekproiect.com; sino081960 @vahoo.com Subject: Deer Creek Project Hello City Council and Chris: I am thinking of the environmental impact of the Deer Creek Project and can think of many ways the project will have an immediate positive effect on our limited and precious resources. 1. Driving to Rohnert Park for a full service home improvement store takes about an hour round trip and costs .50 - .90 a mile to operate or own and operate a car, respectively, so not having to drive to Rohnert Park will save us the transportation "costs" including cash, fossil fuel and the most precious resource of all, time. 2. Less driving means cleaner air and reduced traffic for Sonoma county. Both of those sound good to me! 3. Petaluma residents will save half a percent in sales tax by shopping in Petaluma as opposed to Rohnert. Park and Petaluma will reap the benefit of receiving City sales tax that now goes to Rohnert Park. Wow! What would I do with all that time, money and clean air? Well, I'd walk downtown and take a sewing class at StitchCraft, take a friend to dinner at Kumari's, maybe treat myself to an afternoon treat from Petaluma Pie Company and, of course on the way home, I'd stop into Copperfield's for a new book to read. Annamaria Pardini (503) 781 9261 CP - 1 4- From: Nicholas Littlejohn fmailto:nicklittleiohnRgmail.coml Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 11:32 AM To: CDD Subject: Deer Creek Village, really it's about keeping our community wealth I am happy to.see that we will have a chance at a local hardware store in place of multinational Lowes. We need to urgently work toward building community wealth, not exporting it to companies peddling primarily Chinese goods. I'd also like to see a promote Main Street campaign, to ideally develop many more local shops reachable by bicycle and foot in place of the proposed giant Target. We can have a stronger, healthier community. It's in the hands of our wise decisions. Thank you, Nicholas (,0 - 15 Sent By: CALTRANS TRANSPORTATIO PLANNING; 510 286 5560; Dec-30-11 10:49AM; Page 1/2 Jeld.—; P RE P.. -i';t. y?:..be±t.'∎N FDM[1Nn G.BROWN Jr. OOV.£BNOR DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 111 GRAND AVENUE VIP) P.0.BOX 23680 ' OAKLAND;CA 94623-0660 Flex your power! PHONE(610)286-5541 Be energy efciene! FAX(510)2864559 TTY 711 December 30, 2011 RECEIVED JAN 0 3 2012 SON101893 • SON-101-4.76 SCH 2004092093 Ms. Heather Hines COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City of Petalutna 11 English Street Petaluma,CA 94952-2610 Dear Ms. Hines: Deer Creek Village—Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) Thank you for continuing to iinclud&the California Department of Transportation(Department)in the environmental review•process for the pmpnsedpreject. In review of the responses to our comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR),.we remain concerned over the establishment of a baseline for traffic;analysis;accounting for traffic added to congested facilities and coordination With the Depaitinent regarding stormwatcr-management,in particular the use of our drainage facilities at the East Washington Boulevard interchange. Baseline for Analysis In our comments on theDEIR,we stated that references to the State's;economic downturn and its impact on traffic volume do not relieve the responsibility to use current traffic data, instead of traffic data from 2007. In consideration of your FEIR response regarding 2007 numbers as the more conservative approach, it is still necessary to account for traffic added to thc area by projects between 2007 and the present as the baseline for analysis. For example,the nearby East Washington Place project(Notice of Determination[NOD)filed 9/23/2011)adds traffic generated by 362,000 square feet of retail uses and 16,000 square feet of office space,with approximately 1,500 parking spaces. As!requested throughout your CEQA process,we urge you to actively consult with us;to address'details of analysis;our,highway projects are based on.performance measures before and after construction. The responsibility to account for project impacts and added traffic to the`maiiiline will fall on the California taxpayers if not the proponents of projects that make our-higliway:iiigtio6ements necessary. Accoanfing fgrAdded'Tkgfy cto.Congested Facilities Discussion of'traffic additions'to congested highway facilities should notbe discussed in terms of percentage of capacity. When traffic is forecast to be over 80%of capacity, a meaningful discussion of volume throughput and travel time becomes necessary..This will describe the planned disruptionto•Circulation and potential safety concerns,including on and at local roadways 'Coltrane improve°mobility aerosol Californio" • • 1 Sent By: CALTAANS TRANSPORTATIO PLANNING; 510 286 556D; Dec-30-11 10:50AM; Page 2/2 Ms. Heather Hines/City'of Petaluma December 30,2011 Page 2 and intersections. In the future,please consult with us on appropriate methods to address additions to congested facilities. Coordination with the Department on Stonnwater Management The Department is required to adhere to certain standards for runoff and drainage as is the City of Petaluma. The use of the 54".cross-culvert programmed into the East Washington Boulevard Interchange project,will'requite the issuance of an encroachment permit by the Department,and will be subject to conditions established for the purpose of us meeting,our obligations under applicable law. if the water volumes;added to our facilities exceed standards-required of us,the City will be responsible for funding the necessary upgrade. As implied where-your document states that additional measures and appropriate determinations will be assessed as the project is further developed,we will require,active consultation between the City,my office and Department units engaged with the East Washington Boulevard Interchange Project to establish specific thresholds and determinationsbn whether and how to move forward with the use of our drainage. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please call me at(510)286-5541 or Connery Cepeda of my staff at(510)286-5535.. Sincerely, GARY ARNOLD -.. . District Branch Chief • Local Development I Intergovernmental Review c: Scott Morgan(State Clearinghouse) • • - I I , `Caltrane imprrwee mobility=rose California" r-,1 ru' e• � i :1 r•,; ) , +r –, (. it r Summary Report beer Greek ..y ....4 , Net?% orfwwoct -. 1T- Workshop �, '. ,,I .�,j., .y , }, s ` .A 'r^�! 1 Saturday August 6, 2011 Lucchesi Center � � t Petaluma, CA -z • , e- ci r n to t Ilr 1 ' !. , aLf. f,',4 �1. ,t t'Y`f? F" — 4-L- [ _ -,,- �,r IT -,.i h `r. ...• .• �—LC.i..'I 4 i` # - !iii.' ,. - - 1 0 ‘-r f' . 1{{II 4 1 r. r F t o .4.d ( J.-�1 , •Wor CALIFORNIA ' Is INFILL S o B U I LD E QS:a n r r,:, ' ASSOCIATION 'n [ V Deer Creek Neijkborkooet Workrkop- . • ri Table of Contents I � ` * • h i Invitation ; -'4 Summary of Discussion 1 �. •IP ! Overarching Goals 1 w' • -%;, �, --+,, 1 -i Illustration of Downtown Petaluma overlaid $ '1. onto Deer Creek site 2 <,' a �,. } ., � i ' Walkability 4 mow •t=- _i r. . ' - r" Community Workshop Alternative 4 y _ Comparison of Building Useage 5 Concept Plan Legend 7 e. _ Alternative Concept Statistics . 8 Concept Illustrations 9 Y V Illllllll , ,-,e ' i }P, 44 r, 1: s a ; . . w i .yam - - r• ,11..r- ..'l t r I �I u T �i I y,.k ' •_ . N, r i rre, : !#nt.'. • ,t t? I• 1 ..'r's-`p r'r r it •.4;1 %. - L e -C ew.i. J -!. -- . . r i �.'` i „f1`'; ..� ° Jfi` Deer Creek Ne(9kborkoOLC workshop, SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION On Saturday August 6th, a group of devoted East Petaluma community members gathered in the Commu- nity Center to discuss the future of the currently vacant Deer Creek lot that lies between Highway 101 and McDowell Blvd. A number of city officials also ob- served the proceedings. They included several Planning Commissioners,and City Council members, including the town mayor. The morning began with the participants discussing what they liked best about their community, and then what they thought would help complete the community. Everything from a bandstand to row houses to corridor connections was proposed, and then the attendees has the opportunity to vote on which uses were most important to them. Following a brief Power Point presentation on neighborhood design and walkability, the group broke out into small tables, where with a trained professional, each group designed their own site plan. While every group's plan had its own features and inno- vations, major underlying themes could be seen through- out them all There was an all around recognition that this is an important infill opportunity site since 95% of all infill sites within the Bay Area are 6 acres or less, while this site is more than 36 acres and warrants thor- ough consideration.. Overarching Goals Overarching Goals that came out of the workshop were: • to,treat East Petaluma like West Petaluma's Down town area; • • to prioritize walkability and transit access; • to incorporate high-quality design in the new site plan; and • to create a McDowell Corridor Specific Plan. Deer Creek NerythorAzad Works/sop I , . • - tar '1-'1 I e -:,.■ - ,is,' -, - - 1 r l',' ill' 4 -,-- i '- , - - , '7 ,I ! -1 -, ' 'j it , .., , 1 t . - Li r '41. . i 1 1 4. 1 d , 1. - — - — .. - -- Site Analysis-Downtown Petaluma as lntili-Walnut Park on Blvd, .....ett. McDowell/Deer Creek Site .. , , ..tr , i , 4' . `-`-'---•-- 'T... I • • "14" .t)47101.!... sr-ri. 1., ' 1 . , • •'*•_. ,. a ..,..„,. ', -11 • , trp -J.,. ags-,4ct,4..4" jilt.: -- t aS s _ - Zr .-.17:1-4,, -,,, '44„..,,-, •• • ri r I,, - -',,- It) F t 1 I r in . , '.- Wri i u ihc: :11,.4 - .- .111•91 i: Cj j '' m: kw Ler: I . e•i. ' 1 . ,.- ' 4. . a • . ..X., 4'. , \ : F r / c ' :•'"V it. :1-0 Y :{;4Ir 2 -P.& A.4 : • c• ..- . . --TT- --" ..,_--, ,...n e,...$ , ---- -,,r- Mit'•If I(L'-' ,1 ,- _ . . . ....... r .4 • , ,4,,,-.,-4,...... Noir) ' s • .: .. 1 : I .... - .• mi.• id ir ti .. .... • ci.----‘, - . a Theater Square 1 Downtown Petaluma ... . --. i...•-- , I . ,,,,-•:, oit:e as-- ,it ill; - ;11 -- - — ------` - --------- n` - i -— — P Derr Creek Neighborhood Workshop --- ' T. '4 — ; , I At the end of the workshop, there were a number of standouts in'tertns of popular desired uses for the new a. d site plan. Ranging in themes from parks to housing, the. - . Fir-�r . following is a summary of those uses. There was a f t E definite consensus for mixed-use buildings, to incorpo- ' t � 1, rate residential, commercial and office spaces. e it •,//''d' ' );' -e, _ � 11 Y I Most critically, for the success of any project that into .. 91', 1-4...,••r .,o �, '• .7-. I be built on the Deer Creek Site, is to utilize high-quality iii Sr,- design that incorporates the project into the surrounding neighborhood as seamlessly as possible.Additionally, d - rteAl t "' `^ zr , the workshop attendees prioritized the efficient use of . i '.' yr' i,C-c, ' -� property.. This involves: 95 � ' " _x ri` •pr • having buildings with two to three stories, dry ' 'tit • parking located in the interior of blocks, lit I: z �. r?!+ `,y • wrap-around retail, and • policy like that of Downtown Petaluma. . (1; • People embraced a higher density to a full 2.5 r �� 'r ,�1 FAR(floor area ratio), which would mean density i similar to that of Downtown West Petaluma -' �g . ( ,,.@ t : i F and reducing the ratio of parking to building. A.•5. . �. A. i, O il 11�, v I t"''''''7, , ,;1 4 l; I Ut, • • For many a connection between the new site• Z '-;_e l ;11 project and Lynch Creek was a crucial component. • A proposed mini town center(with civic uses) . gained much support at the workshop. \i `� ' /4•• • Residential elements were essential to creating a* t: ;' a4 - -"* ,�`_sit' - walkable community and reducing traffic. e ..1 `i : ..:.. I i �, 'E. •: i; - - y� •• Space for expansion of medical related businesses' r.' +p_`-1 t • ! to encourage collaboration and coordinate with the %.1" y'� - .< nearby hospital and othere existing nearby uses. • 7, �•' w.rs p �7 t l % a j' ri I i Two other item of critical concern were also noted. - -- w. ' ----- They included concern for drainage and runoff that can 4' f Deer Creek Neighborhood Workshop contribute to downstream flooding and also, traffic circulation along the McDowell corridor and within the site. These could have major influence over the nature of the plan and need to be well thought out and inte- grated with other traffic improvements such as the extension of Ranier Avenue and a new interchange with Highway 101. Walkability l e 1 One measure of walkability is WalkScore. WalkScore is ';'" o a scale of zero to 100, with a score of zero indicating a ill t rt place that is completely unwalkable and car-dependent ni .k g - ;, and a score of 100 indicating that the location is maxi- ' 'I ° mally walkable: The WalkScore of a site increases with 1 : µ, { ri' proximity to everyday necessities, such as grocery r' stores, schools, and transit stops and decreases with '' a I I distance from these.amenities. The WalkScore of the + � 'i : +� Deer Creek site as if is now (vacant) is 52 (for some t j 4 N, perspective, the'WalkScore of the surrounding neighbor- 1'.e ti k�r'4't " ,gyp hood is 57 and the WalkScore of Downtown Petaluma is f � p '' 1+. 95). By developing the site, its WalkScore and the it�4 ;r h �: `t• `p+, WalkScore of the nearby neighborhood would increase..17 , s41=' 1, If the development is high density and mixed-use, the P is WalkScore will rise much more than if the development b - includes merely a.few uses, separated by seas of parking ,,„ , -- ° :T 3 '�" t lots. Walkability is a critical component of any healthy, pleasant, and environmentally friendly community. Based on the results from the workshop and the draft EIR (Environmental Impact Report) of the current site proposal, the following is a comparison of the building usages and square footage of the two plans: Community Workshop Alternative The following Community Workshop Alternative Plan shown here, has been derived from the discussion and preferences voiced by the various discussion groups at the workshop. The plan is conceptual and largely based Deer Creek Nekikborknort Workshop Comparison of Building Useage 1 I Proposed Deer Creek Village` 1 !. 1 ICommunity Workshop Alternative 1 a ' 4 8 llifinp Use`a` M■ WIlik 1571e PI , „ adding User - a '{Budkltrt Std is41tj° _:�. Major Retail Tatal;"l -1-22-1 f ,3281 lMajor Retail Total: i 54,052 Shopssubtatat•I 1 31,3001 Hal usPaikfngGarage 1 11R;spaces 47,361 OtherRetai3 °,__......�,...�,_ Restaurant ___...._._......._. 1-- 6;5001 I ;Mixed Use -.—.._ . ................w._-, • Pharmacy 14.8201_ ( Shops/Retail total i 314,077 Grocery l 8,1001 I j Offices total I 21A 1581 __.. Other Retail Total:I 29,4201 j Total Residential Units ! 337' 578,7651 Services { i Total parking spaces 1 1,0231 409,0761 . Bank S,OW I 1 Total Mixed Use: 1,516,026 Professional Offices 7,5001 1 I 1 Medical Offices s,D001 I ;Residential Townhouse Units:l 86■units ' 136,941 Services total:; 17500' 1 I 1 Recreation Total:; i 44,4501 INeighborhood Park 1 5 acres I Total Building Square Footage i i 343,9981 ;Total Building Square'Footage i I 1,754,420 i I I I e Draft El Ft I I 1 s 1 I " Includes 4 major retail stores I I 1 1 1 upon the Table #2 Plan. This was the preferred concept of the majority of attendees. However, the alternative has incorporated many of the other features from the other table top groups where possible. The concept plan features a 5 acre neighborhood park within the mixed use community and also fronting onto Mc Dowell Road. The mixed use community includes a variety of 3 story buildings but also includes several residential condo- minium structures or townhomes,.parking structures, and a large two story major retail store-with an adjacent parking garage. The residential condo atea.is adjacent to the neighbor- hood park along its north side. The major retail use and its,related',parking structure is located towad the northwest end of the community and would be primarily accessed from the extension of 0 -9+ Deer Greek Ne[9kbarkooet workshop- Ranier Avenue. It is also near the 101 freeway to enable - visibility from the freeway and to shield the smaller • 1 P ;.4 y mixed use structures from the highway. __, r,' _ The 3 story mixed-use buildings withrn the remaining m F e ,, «1 portion of the community contain-retail or professional '+tn� rt 1 L-ig ;, z a °� `° L.�_, office uses with Some parking within the ground floor, ] �ytl,i '.1t :d*g iE ,_ and-either,office or residential units on the"second and J, Q. ti 'wuakS•% ' 1Jr third stories. - _,a 'v r '/ + '� Q P' - 4 -,r J. ;. There are also two major mixed use parking structures ti;- ---":2-,. .7%... _. -: 'n� , ,r1-,--.1 located`adjacent to either end of the community park. alf o pe ' � �a These parking structures are three stories with some j .:- a6 e F �. i retail businesses located along the fronts of the first ry, 7,7 floor. These are locate d.to provide parking for the r y ` '.fir. . neighborhood park as well as the nearby mixed use I- ,r' - y:_±s.y structures. Office uses such as professional medical facilities are .4 ** envisioned toward the south side of the community aria t1' -� ■a1 where there is proximity to.existing medical offices and ' C1=t , `r-$a1 i' i l9 k ' the hospital across McDowell Road. Offic uses are also =%-b-1&.,t d ". 17 'J4_41.4,11)6 envisioned for the mixed use structures along the west e-r°` ! rwl side of the community to serve as buffers to the adjacent S Fr,' ; '' S i - 101 freeway. •,R '^�" '- :r '1/2w l i ,44,3;,,,,; K° lire workshop provided an opportunity for the interested 1.. u � [' t � 4 1P public to explore alternative concepts. The workshop HI . •/ .. \• '.lis = alternative illustrated here is a concept that needs further ' study and discussion. A Specific Plan that"studies the '_ r -+� 4, 1 , $. IC.;i-, p relationship;of such a concept with the entire McDowell c�`'� .. `!1 Road comdbr would enable detail planning and the F t- -= ui ' ' 4 s,' 1 relationship of the concept with circulation patterns, it y•" rt' 4_, 1` ' parking needs, transit, drainage, recreational use and �ru1 � , compatibility with adjacent land use. Establishment of a I Specific Plan would further provide economic feasibility .4- c� 4. ;.� 'x'" study and provide a greater'degree of certainty for development of the parcel, as well as the economic feasibility of road improvements and possible efficien- Deer Creek-Neiykborkooct workshop cies that might be gained from a higher density mixed use plan. The following graphic illustrates the overall workshop alterna- tive concept. Within the following pages area table with statistics for each structure,and illustrations of the concept plan. Building Number Legend MatleasItiht 144:1,,r s � 9,fp 354, 36 ' f i E `1111 ' ooa�l I . ' I n i. ri' . d „: „....„. ,: , ,....e.„. ....a „„.,,,,,4::,,,.....,„,,,,..„,„ .....,...„,„,,,,d.„;.,t 3 .„ I 1. .„...,,,,,..,.......,re %...33(Niria--.39-=3:E:4414% aara iaTT' Tb &, • Deer Creek Neighborhood Workkap- Deer Crock Workshop Alternative Concept•Statistics I I 1 8888.. ,_--. _,. + ._ 1 + -..... renal r Total Toi4 + N4ma4r Vf1 Tani 1 f4udnb o 9uilding1 U e ( Total #lest 0764,€Ltdilour 814 floor Rulldin$ Iftati3U1O1 Ofncn •Raildan16ai v fall PMkin4 pi Pat` r Numb t I fTwrsi Ise!tt) (s4 ftl Iris fl y4w is4016!7 Is9£0 i I� , Usti 1'4 Li) Wins 1U44 Is4 NI Spates d fit ' t I 7811•44 t!R I 3 29855 2318551 71.5431 17,-1911 1 53„573; 124 ! ,.._,._.._ ..... :._..._..�..�....�.. _.. .. .,1 2 1 Mired 1St 3 i.. 12„948 1:,9181 13.946 38,9441 29,133 1 ...__I 9.711; 24 3._- 1 MN.ad Use 3 7.. 13224 332231 13294 39572,11 29754 ._-._ _.. . i 9,9]5.._.. 2 : ... 4 MIC4tl.UU 3 15 5 15 352 15,262 45.7%1 '-4.3 �� 1 _ I 117839, 2" 7 9.. l.. 3.442111_117 1 _ 3 133181 1 j628 55,824' 1,863I 1 „ �37 3635 23 36.16351 41 8 62B 1B 30 1 M4481254 I 3 4932 6v932} 6532 20755. ion!, 1 13SE4 9, 1 _L MRed.U.e 1 3 4131; 4,1111 4133, 12.333, 4,111=, 1 9SZ2: 4%_...... 1 12 1 M d!lie 1 3 ' 337.3,160 2411031 773/1061 9073X,1 36,6413 4U33 28 4Occo to L6 1 1.14 411 Lks 1 3 1 21678' 219791 n979 95,9173 485; 1 43,98 27 16.414! 41 17 1 Mired Usr 3 1 6,5821 9,91321 SA2 301545; 12,3_881 6362 31 1.3761 3 8 1 53944 Mt _07_3 1 5,1631 5,1631 5;163. 15.434: 9,293: 5,143'----- 3 '100331 3 ._ 8888.. i _ _ .._ __- _._._r 8888._ 15 , Ml.44Llse . 3 1 92611 8,2611 626E 1378331 11,270 1 6,267 3 1,252! 3 20 hilredil:r 3 ] 2„1741 41.21 :4,174. 125221 1913 4,7741 2 8331 --- 2= .2L Mired USe 3 - - _ 4498 ?819' �, 1,556 l.i 313, I_ 15ib1 1.5861 1,55fi; 1 i 22 1 Miscd__. i 3 ( 'c,.Ck. _, 2,097/ 2067 fi dC:7. _3 721! 2.067 1 47] lr 20 Mired LOcc�� 3.`....�`3134 ,20}1931 . 29150 85.4.0 14,5751 519x51 68.3CV, 363 1657 t 23 M] cd Li;e 3 15 74 16,13711 11 167374 56622 4?247 3.11S1 24 MI 4d Uss 20,.- Mired_Uca 1 3 1000S 10085 13,558 302641 3070/ 1 20,176 16 2.0131 _ .27 MI ed Usc+ I 3 t 4,9 53 6,9151 &.415 26 745^, 1;4581 1� 13 •-71 3.4321 . .__.__. . 8.888_. -�...._ , ,._....... _ 1 __ 28 Mired Use I 3 1 11488' 84881 3429 252'4}. 4144; I 14976 11: 4,2441 11 291 MM4d Ursc WI 3 ! .3.429' 6,aeol 6,488 19.1671 3.2451 1 1297'8 8 3,245':' ... -.�......�:.._...__ ......n..�... . - ..Z. .__ 11.41_ . . 41__. 8 • 30. 1 Mh4d LGM 1 3 8327, tr,127T 522.7 19)53]' 3„2.241 I 12,454` R 3,17x1 £ .. ,_._m__.: 311 MGCd.USe 3 i 4!5224 432214:31' li 9a-7 2.561,.._._. 8888 8828.._,.,8888,... od _..4 . 1 'Ass 1, 9.161, 5= 32 MI.Ed UUe I 3 I #444', :24:4441 24.144 73332: 4.889E � 49.&35 311 19553. 4^' 2388__. _> 33 I MILc4 Uu 1 3 1 1 18` 31,3101 11,118 333-46 I 27,702° I 5,2'131 14 -3d _ 4197.411.107 3�9 33431 9981 9463 295441. 1 24.955A �1 4,992 32: 35-1—Mi.¢d'Lkc 1 3 a 1 9)33' 9.6231 9.e 4 G 97340'; 4,840;_ i 19,560 10 4840:. 12''. 361 Mtred Ul2, 1 3 1- 9,680 36631 3,434 29040 48401 1 19930 101 43401 11 37 3 741040 Ux _3_I 962(}, 5,6101 9620 28.9 0': 4,8301 19°,2,03° 101 4,8101 72 39--1 /1147.1119.0e. 3 l 9js22'�9,6221 9.6=2 225561 4,3111'µ i_. 19,244� 1O. 4,5111 12. -....____._ ....._..,. 882 _.. 5_ 39 ( Mired.Uxa t 3 ! 11,104; 2 3 691 1v3.L*i 83912' 10,:.321 ( 42,60.:'. 371 1O,fi521 T7f 40 1 Mitad,Uta 1 3 I 53731 3,3721 0,378 51341 4.:891 j� 19,736 0 4,139. 37.1 ..._...... .I.._... 16 882:8 8888.__ d1 -1 17148/11.5.7 3 1�—' 9�„757, 919 1,191 37476 4,596 1fl.324 31 4.5%+ 11; 41 1 Mt.ed 1354 I 3 f n;3E24 6,7121 5.932 2O,736,. 3456 13.824 7: 3,416'. 8888 .�.._1 43 Mixed List_ 3. I� 6..23) 6,2231-- 22si 6,223 18.�q 3,113 12.446 8 3.112 7 44 1_ 3.1144_USt�I_3 1�972 ' 9,7E91 X374 93x5 4,893 1 19,570 12 4893 �mm 12i '�45 M and Usc 1 3 1 7876,157/ 8337 21,471, 4,079 18,314 16 4.079 10 40 I Mired usc 3 1 7646; 78651 7."__ 23593-. i 19655 ... 888_1 39311 ;..:1 ,........._., 8888.. Ii r._.. . . _ ._.._..... .._..____ 47 1 Mired USS 1 3 1 333 5, 83 3325 .,.975'. 1_20 313 4161 3 r 48 1 '1117831 Use I 3 i 3,6941 8,69'1 4654, 2631411 1 32,7351 4,3471 :121 ,-;_ _ 1MIKed Use Suttosals j 1,347,390 1 29Q53O 2131581 578,766 3371 263,9371 --ri 2228.. _ 8,888 .._�_. 2888. -.:_ '” __ ___ ._..._J.._1 2888_.- .._.1_ _ _....._.:___._ 1._.._�_.._ __- 2888 I I 1 1 . ! ?_.._ 31 ■ 6 �w89111nu141 1 3 1 1774472 474711 17471 52,213; I 1 52,211 331 4'1 '-7 1 Resklm✓.tat ( 3 1 .17,4181 174381 17,,43E 07,3141 I 1 52,.834'; 331_ 9.i",. ,... p. I ._ xrsiMwt4a]_ 1 31 76,,364 cu.7�51 14,14 32.1141 i I 32,214+ Vital 1 -•;, ..,.__I fiesde7/ttal-Only Subtotals'1.. 1 _-_ 135,141.. t 116.4 861 ._ :_......_ 41.._..... 2888.._ l ! I i __...� ..�; I C _l_... 1 1 �4 4 1, . _._ . . 8288_ 5 1 Farion69.ructw9 E i I 30153 3UG3tl 3115 5 91509; 13,:81 1 _ I 73524. 116 13. 1110P1111,3 5,,6 emu t 3 357 7 _.35 171 25,177 fTkLi G',Gtii _ 717834! 17v! + n .,. _.. _ _.. � ,:..._�... , . - •, Parking 91eueasre3rs/Aot,oi; - .� 16$,4730; T476j 1 148,146/ 4431 1.t� i 1 _ i __ �. 4; 1 _ __ .. .9999 „__ .(. ._...151ak CWrmgn rd` l 27416i. 1 U461 SG,! 910+12(-8828,. _ .�. I 65 -I9erbn�gra.;ltyi a7 .1-J- 7$.7557 'S9 ,67, -3.5."%;ca 47.kR1y# ) .d-.. 4. _, . . . 4TJ11r4.11';.. I I 1. _01 3 I )tP, lu4 4631 64,64 ( 37,561 1 Taut U14 @ I 1,754,4211 368,140( 114,156'. 715,706. .. . . .3231 46678171 1269 . . 8228. _._ 2888 8888. __. (p — ✓/n''` I Deer Creek Neigkbarka2 Warkskap r 'i •'0,-,o• �T. + '�• III !j-1 . ,, .-.... ,�.24 H V- — � - _ -...+ I —jar! r�--�� 1;._t_.- j +�,..L�- - - • • S` r x +106' _ y N.', -7-,m,--,-.--ire' r•' ,4w. .. f * Sr i' , - 1. --C;1 _ ... J fVj r U V [il•_ �• r � r(, - / may. ,d. y f — –_ S– ia. 8 -i1�1, -.- z as • M HL Pq^ 2 1 - • - m r1 .' 1 t M ,N U r'/`J' ATTACHMENT 1 Deer Creek Village located at McDowell and Rainier Petaluma Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory (PBAC) Planner: Derek Farmer • CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DATED June 2, 2010- proposed by Subcommittee for full PBAC consideration at June 9, 2010 meeting Notes to Planner: the PBAC wants to acknowledge the efforts of this applicant to meet with the PBAC to review and discuss proposed plans. PBAC commends die applicant for listening to PBAC concerns at the several meetings where this project was on the agenda for discussion and for including comments,concerns and modifications to plans recommended by PBAC and the Public Works dept. These are the first set of actual COAs prepared by PBAC for this project,after reviews of this application in July 2009,December 2009,January 2010 and May 2010. All comments and COAs contained herein are based on die plans dated April 12,2010 as stamped by the Public Works Dept. Bicycle Parking (Section 20-300, Article 20, Zoning Ordinance) Plans show 150 bicycle racks provided, 80 covered and 70 uncovered. PBAC approves of these racks in the amounts and locations shown,and recommends same as condition of approval., PBAC notes that Bicycle Parking has been moved away from trash receptacles as requested.; PBAC notes and approves of widely dispersed bicycle parking on the plans and the inclusion of separate racks serving individual buildings: Applicant has supplied post and loop bike racks designs for use in the project, on plans labeled M/SA-05,which meet City standards. Applicant is encouraged to use a variety of rack models and styles with artistically interesting designs,showing creativity and reflecting the character of the city and`complementing the building designs,while meeting city specs. Whenever possible,.Applicant shall locate racks near doors and with adequate lighting. Class I Shared Use Pathways (BPP Policy 1 Program C,Policy 11) PBAC notes placement and conditions the project with.a minimum 10 ft wide Class I shared path along entire frontage of project shown on plans..We commend Applicant's,solution here to create a useable shared path appropriate for multiple users,offering.some offset.from.McDowell,with some architectural interest while creating safe passage along the project's frontage. PBAC recommends signage at drive and street entrances to die project alerting vehicle traffic to Class I users. PBAC notes die deteriorated condition of the Class Ion east side of McDowell,which should be improved to ease bike/ped traffic in both directions. PBAC was advised that this project could not be conditioned with Class Iimprovements along both sides of McDowell. For this reason,PBAC . recommends that in die future; the City earmark funding for improvement of Class Ion east side of McDowell. PBAC notes and approves of the inclusion of a minimum 8 ft wide Class I shared use paths along both sides of`Deer Creek"and the loop path around the dog walk area,which shall be a condition of approval. Further we note and approve of the 8 ft DG pathway shown on the plan at the back of the Majors connecting with Lynch Creek Way,\vhicli shall be elevated from the adjacent parking area by 6 inches. Applicant Shalt be responsible in perpetuity for proper installation to ensure long-term usability and providing proper maintenance of the DG path,which PBAC notes requires special 1 - I attention. PBAC recommends signage at drive and street entrances to the project alerting users to the existence of the Class I paths especially the route behind the Majors,to Lynch Creek Drive Class II facilities,which lead to the Lynch Creek cross town connecting path. Class II Bicycle Facilities A Class II'bike facility shall be installed along bothsides-ofLynch Creek Way,_as agreed to by f'I applicant at PBAC May meeting. Additionally,vehicle parking shall be prohibited along Lynch Creek Way. Inclusion of these Class II facilities will provide cyclists,especially commuters and through traveling cyclists with a safer,more direct route to Lynch Crk Trail than using the Class I along the frontage. Applicant shall install Class II facilities along its entire frontage of Rainier Avenue. Intersection Improvements (BPP Policy 1 Program E,Policy 8 Program B) Applicant shall install full intersection improvements at the intersection of Professional Dr. and McDowell Blvd.North.Where not already present,the applicant shall install intersection improvements at Rainier and McDowell Blvd.North.Additional intersection improvements at these . locations,or any other intersection or location shall be installed as determined through the project review/environmental analysis. PBAC notes and includes as a condition of approval crosswalks shown on plans at south side of Major 1 and Lynch Creek Way,near.Fitness,across parking lots between Shops D and Grocery, southern exit from project turning right onto McDowell etc.;Applicant shall used articulated and colored pavement in all of these areas. To enhance safe pedestrian access to the project's McDowell frontage/village aspect of the project adjacent to "Shop C and Medical Budding 2",clearly defined crosswalks,signage and barricades shall be installed to guide pedestrians: Through Travel All wallcways within the project shall be 6 ft wide minimum to the greatest extent feasible. Sidewalks shall be installed on Rainier Avenue along the project frontage. Pedestrian-friendly Infrastructure (BPP Policy 5,Policy 8) PBAC and approves of the 3 separate,designated walkways to be installed in the parking areas in front of the Majors,as shown on die plans. These walkways shall be constructed with • raised/colored pavement to provide safe convenient passage for shoppers/peds in the east/west directions from Major,1 to the Medical Office building and from Major 1's garden center to,Shops B and Major,3 to Shops:A. This is necessary to reduce conflict between peds and vehicles,as there is considerable pedestrian exposure to vehicle traffic in this very large parked area PBAC requires signage to alert both motorists and pedestrians to safer passage for all These walkways must have a rtiinimurn deacance width of six(6) feet(after consideration of vehicle overhang)but ideally 8 ft if can be accommodated,between parked cars to allow movement of shoppers with carts and ped/strollers. Applicant is advised to work with Public Works department to identify the most elegant solution to this concern,which may include wheel stops or similar method. Signs Applicant shall prepare a signage plan for review by Public and,(do you wane this to come back to the committee?) addressing safety,and direction to;other points of interest/significance in the area. Of importance is to ensure signs are installed'to-alert motor vehicle traffic to bike/ped use of the Class I facilities and points of intersection. Install signs at intersection of Rainier and McDowell alerting cyclists to use the Class I shared facility instead of riding in the street. At Buildings Major 1,2 and 4,install signs indicating"employee and truck delivery passage only"to prevent public traffic from..going,to the west side of retail buildings. This is necessary to reduce the number of vehicle/bicyclist/pedinteractions. Install signs at rear of project alerting through truck traffic;to peds/bicyclists using the Class I DG pathway to Lynch Creek Drisie. Install stop signs from both.directions on frontage drives along,all sets of retail buildings. Public Transit Accommodations (BPP pg36,83):Install'bus stops along McDowell if consistent with SCTA plans/polices;consider running the route to bring transit users into the project along the road between shops. Glare-free Lighting (BPP Policy 17 Program E) Ensure good quality lighting guiding the way to and near exterior bike iack/locker locations,at the dog-walking loop,along the Class I behind Major3 and 4,along the Class I at'the rear of the Majors and along Deer Creek. All exterior lighting shall provide a"soft wash"of light against the wall and shall be hooded and directed downward with no direct glare into bicyclists/peds eyes and shall conform to city standards. • Employee Showers/Lockers/Amenities(Section 20-1200,Article 20,Zoning Ordinance) City code requires,employee showers and lockers are required for retail.spaces over 10,000 square feet.Applicant's plans list 4 employee showers. However,PBAC notes that there are 6 buildings exceeding 10,000 sq ft.(not including the fitness building,which must have a separate set of showers for men/women customers. All buildings within this project that are 10,000 sq ft or more,shall have at least one shower,pet.City standards.Buildings that are 10,000sq.ft or more and then divided to accommodate more than one tenant,shall have shared showers accessible to all tenants to encourage employees to use their bicycles to get to work or allow them to shower after exercise to comply with the spirit of the city code PBAC notes and approves of inclusion of showers for Professional Offies. Benches Ft Drinking Fountains Water fdutitains,accessible to people and their dogs/service animals are needed: At the dog walking loop,along the Class I along Deer Creek,in the plaza areas between Professional Building and Medical Office,Between Shops A and B,and near Restaurant A. Benches shall be installed along Deer Creek, at the dog-walking loop and behind Major 3 and 4. Ample outdoor seating..shall".be provided with benches or through other means at Professional Building and Medical Office,Between Shops A,B and C,and near Restaurant A,and in areas ., • expected to be used for farmer's markets. Incentives to Walk/Bicycle/Transit to Work "Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy,Applicant shall provide a simple one-page document to the city naming a designated "transportation coordinator" describing specific incentives for employees to wallt,'bicycle or to take transit,thereby encouraging alternatives to driving cars to this site. Examples include lending-bicycles for short errands,monetary or other rewards for not driving, discounts for bicycling,formation of groups of employees who pledge to bicycle,walk, carpool or ride transit at least once a week,etc. Applicant shall comply-with Municipal Code 11.90." To reduce GHG emissions,delivery trucks,contractors and persons using the drive up to Major 1 for construction material loading shall be prohibited from running their engines. Signage shall be installed to instruct motorists to turn off their engines while loading/unloading. Delivery trucks serving all of the buildings within the project shall be required to turn off.engines while loading/unloading. • Measures to reduce automobile trips should be implemented, thus reducing mobile source emissions (Green House Gas Emission reduction). Measures should include: !, Developing a rideshare program that would be implemented by all future employers. Providing protected, secure,and convenient bicycle parking for employees at all uses within the • project. Providing a shower and locker facility for site employees who bicycle or walk. Providing short-term^bicycle parking for retail customers and other non-commute trips that would be more convenient than auto parking. Providing safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle access to all uses on the site." • •