The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutStaff Report 5.A 09/24/2012 Agev'4 Itenw# .A cALU w R/4A` 1858 DATE:, September 24, 2012 TO: Honorable'Mayor'and Members of the City Council through City Manager FROM: Heather Hines,Planning Manager SUBJECT: Resolution denying-the appeal submitted by the_Petaluma Neighborhood Association and upholding the Planning Commission's approval of the Deer Creek Village Project RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution denying the appeal by the Petaluma Neighborhood Association and affirming the Planning Commission's approval of Site Plan and Architectural Review and Conditional Use Permitfor the Deer Creek Village Project located at the intersection of North McDowell and Rainier (APNs 007-380-005 and 007-380- 027). (Attachment 1) 1 BACKGROUND The City Council considered the DR for the Deer Creek Village Project at noticed public hearings on April 25, 2011'and.April,2,2012. At its April 2, 2012 meeting by a vote of 4-3, the Council adopted the following Resolutions concerning the project: 1. Resolution No. 2012-040:Certifying the Environmental Impact Report for the Deer Creek Village Project, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Attachment 7); and 2. Resolution No.2012-041:'MakingFindings 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 (Attachment 8);' Subsequent to-adoption of these resolutions, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing for the project on August 14,2012. The Commission reviewed project plans, exhibits, and documents, received testimonyfrom staff;'the project applicant, and the general public and deliberated. The Commission found-the project layout and-design to be in substantial conformance with the scope of the project analyzed in the FEIR. At the conclusion of its August 14, 2012 meeting, the_Planning-Commission,adopted'Resolution 2012-11 approving Site Plan and Architectural Review°forarnasterisign program, Resolution 2012-12 approving a • Conditional Use Permit for a reduction in required_onsite•parking, and Resolution 2012-013 approving the Site Plan.and Architectural Review for the project, subject to findings and Agenda Review: City Attorney Finance Director City Manager conditions of approval. Additional conditions of approval, as proposed by the Council and Commission and agreed to by the applicant were incorporated into the adopted resolutions. (Attachments 4, 5, 6). DISCUSSION On August 28, 2012 the law firm Shute; Mihaly & Weinberger LLP, on behalf of the Petaluma Neighborhood Association, filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Site Plan and Architectural Review and a Conditional Use Permit for the Deer Creek Village Project and associated piaster sign program. The appeal requests that the City Council reverse the Planning Commission's decision and direct,staff to "take no action on the project unless and until the ER for the project is revised and recirculated for public review and comment" (Attachment 2). The appeal challenges the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Deer Creek Village project and largely does not address specific findings made by the Planning,Commission in its approval of Site Plan and Architectural Review (SPAR) and Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The appellant does challenge one finding for the CUP, but this challenge is based on the alleged inadequacy of the EIR's traffic analysis. (See discussion of Appeal Point#2, below) No modification made during SPAR or CUP review or as a result of conditions of approval significantly changed the scope of the project as analyzed in the FEIR, nor necessitated additional analysis of impacts under the provisions of CEQA. The FEW was certified by the City Council after deliberation and finding that the FEIR was completed in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines,,and the City of Petaluma Environmental Review Guidelines and reflected the City's independent judgment and analysis of the potential for environmental impacts of the project. The two main grounds for appeal and associated points from the appellant are listed below and followed by staff analysis. Appeal Point#1—The FEIR's analysis is not supported by substantial,evidence. Appellant alleges.that the City has not identified sufficient funding for Rainier transportation improvements Both the Rainier Interchange and the Rainier Crosstown Connector are identified infrastructure, improvements in the General Plan to mitigate traffic impacts at General Plan buildout. Additionally,"these improvements were part of the analysis for establishing the traffic. development impact fee adopted by the City Council in May, 2008. The traffic impacts which necessitate the Rainier projects and the other identified,long term traffic improvements occur at General Plan buildout. Due to the economic recession, anticipated development in'Petaluma has slowed significantly. However, all new development has paid the applicable traffic impact fee to fund these long term transportation improvements. Inn certifying the ER, the City Council concluded that,sufficient funding would be available to construct the Rainier transportation improvements. Recent new information further supports that conclusion. On August 27, 2012 the City Council reviewed the Traffic Mitigation Fee Update prepared by Fehr and Peers (Attachment 9) which • removes certain improvements currently included in the Traffic Mitigation Impact Fee program, including what is referred to,in the-2008 fee as the "Caltrans-Preferred Alternative Supplement" (the "split diamond"configuration) for Rainier. The Update also outlines updated assumptions and costs for General Plan Circulation Improvements, recognizing a general increase in cost estimates on a per-improvement basis primarily due to increased construction costs and a more complete estimate including "soft" costs like design, permitting, inspection, and land acquisition. The Update included 2012 proposed traffic impact fees along with a comparison between the 2008 adopted fee and the 2012 proposed fee (Table 3-13). The City Council voted unanimously to adopt the proposed 2012 traffic-impact fees per the Update's recommendation (Resolution No. 2012-025 and Ordinance No. 2444 N.C.S.) The Update's cost study determined that it is necessary to include in the fee program an additional share of the estimated cost of traffic improvements needed to serve future development required in order to adequately fund the needed future traffic improvement identified in the General Plan EHR and the Update. As a result, a "Redevelopment Supplement" was added to the program to cover the $18.8 million in former Petaluma Community Development Commission (PCDC) funding committed to future traffic improvements by cooperative agreement that the California Department of Finance currently disputes as recognized obligations of the formerPCDC, pursuant to ABxI 26 (the law eliminating redevelopment agencies in California). This $18.8 million includes $7.5 million allocated to the Rainier Interchange project. The Redevelopment Supplementswill be collected pending resolution of the dispute with the California Department of Finance over the status of the traffic improvement commitments of the City that rely on tax increment commitments of the former PCDC. If the PCDC agreements are recognized, as the city believes they must be, the traffic development:impact fee can be adjusted to reflect availability-of the former PCDC funding in accordance with the terms of the 2012 traffic fee resolution. Transportation and Traffic Failure to evaluate the project's traffic impact during a.m. peak and weekend midday peak Topical Response 8 in the FEIR (page I1-24) spoke specifically to the use of PM peak hour traffic volumes because they represented the most complete and conservative data set available for the study area. In certifying the EIR, the City Council concluded that the traffic analysis in the EIR"fully and adequately examined the project's traffic impacts. The plans and design reviewed and.approved during Site Plan and Architectural Review and Conditional.Use Permit review are in substantial conformance with the scope of the project analyzed in the REM and there have been no changes that would impact that analysis. Failure to adequately mitigate traffic impacts CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(1) requires that EIRs describe feasible mitigation measures which could minimize significant adverse impacts. Where feasible, the DEIR includes mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate significant project traffic impacts, including the payment of traffic impact fees..As discussed in Topical Response 10 in the FEIR (page II-27), feasible mitigation measures could not be identified for several significant traffic impacts which resulted in those impacts being significant and unavoidable. A statement of overriding considerations was adopted by the City Council for the remaining significant and unavoidable traffic impacts as outlined.'in.Resol"ution'No. 2012-041 N.C.S. (Attachment 8) No modifications made during SPAR or CUP review or as a result of conditions of approval would change the analysis contained in the FEIR. Underestimates traffic impact on US Highway 101 Response C3-5 in the FEIR (page II-133).speaks specifically to the concern that the traffic analysis underestimated traffic on US Highway 101 and relies on the analysis of the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the project and reviewed by the City. In certifying the EIR, the City Council concluded that the traffic analysis in the EIR fully and adequately examined the project's traffic impacts. The project layout and design reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission during SPAR and CUP review are in substantial conformance with the scope of the project analyzed in the FEIR and there have been no changes that would require additional analysis. Cumulative traffic analysis relies on an inappropriate baseline A similar comment was made by,the appellant during the public review of the DEW and was responded to in Response C3-6 in the FEIR(page II-133). Topical Response 7 and Topical Response 5 (pages II-23 and II-18)in the FEIR also provide analysis on the subject in the record. In certifying the EIR, the City Council concluded that the traffic analysis in the EIR fully and adequately examined the project's traffic impacts. Plans approved for SPAR and CUP are in substantial conformance with the.scope of the project analyzed in the FEIR and there have been no changes that would require additional analysis. Failure to analyze impact on pavement conditions As discussed in the FEIR, Response C3-7 (page II-134), the proposed truck routes to the project utilize arterials that have been designed and constructed to a higher Traffic Index and corresponding thicker pavement and rock sections, per industry design standards and therefore capable of accommodating truck traffic. As noted in the DEIR, Lynch Creek Way is also proposed to serve as a truck access'to the project. The DEIR contains mitigation measure TRAFFIC-8c, which requires'the developer to investigate and provide a full roadway width stnictural section able to aecoininodate project-generated truck tri'ps along Lynch Creek Way, with all construction costs being borne by the developer. No modifications to,project layout or design have occurred through SPAR and CUP process or as a result of adopted conditions of approval that would change this analysis. Failure to evaluate whether the project would increase.potential for vehicular collisions Response 0-8 iri.the FEIR(page 11-135) responds to the identical comment that was received from the appellant during review of the,DEIR. The FEIR was subsequently reviewed and certified by the City Council, concluding that th e analysis contained in the EIR was adequate to examine the project's traffic impacts. No modifications made during SPAR or CUP review or as a result of conditions of approval would change the analysis contained in the FEIR. Failure to analyze and mitigate construction related traffic impacts Construction period traffic impacts were determined to be less than significant based on analysis contained in the FEIR and discussed.in Response C3-9 (page-II-135). In certifying the EIR, the City Council concluded that the traffic analysis in the EIR fully and adequately examined the project's traffic impacts. Plans and design approved for SPAR and CUP'are in substantial conformance with the scope of the projectanalyzed in the FEIR for the Deer Creek Village Project. No additional analysis is required for the project. Air quality Operational air emissionsappectr unrealistically low Response C3-10 in the FEIR.(page II-135) provides an in-depth-response regarding the operational air emissions and the methodology used. Additionally, reference is made to Topical Response 12 (page 1I-33) and Response A3-2 (page 1I-61) which also relate to this topic. No modifications to the scope of the project or the_layout or design presented for SPAR or CUP review were made during the course of that review that would-necessitate additional analysis or create inconsistency with the analysis contained in the FEIR which the City Council concluded was adequate to examine the project's air-quality impacts in their certification of the EIR on April 2, 2012. Unrealistically high threshold for significance with evaluating:carbon monoxide impacts As outlined in Response C3-11 in the FEIR (page II-137), the screening criteria used in the DEIR for carbon monoxide impacts were taken directly from the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. In certifying the EIR, the CityCouncil;concluded that the air quality analysis in the EIR fully and adequately examined the project's air quality impacts. No modifications have been made to the scope of the project or the layout.and design presented for SPAR and CUP review that would change the analysis contained in the HR. Failure to adequately mitigate construction related air quality impacts FUR Response A3-1 (page I1-58) responds to a similar comment received from BAAQMD during:review of the DEIR for the project and outlines additional construction mitigation measures that were added to Mitigation Measure AQ-1 to further reduce construction related air quality impacts. In certifying the EIR, the City Council concluded that the air quality analysis.in the MR fully and adequately the project's air quality impacts. No modifications to`the,scope of the project or the layout or design presented for SPAR or CUP review were made during the course of that review that would necessitate additional analysis or create inconsistency with the analysis contained in the FEIR, which the City Council concluded was adequate. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Modeling assumptions are unclear Both individual Response C3-14 (page II-13) and Topical Response 12 (page II-33) in the FEW - address the modeling assumptions used in the Greenhouse Gas analysis. The URBEMIS 2007 modeling file was used in conjunction with the BGM.model to compute the anticipated greenhouse gas emissions, both of which are recommended by BAAQMD in their CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. The,City Council certified the EIR and concluded that the greenhouse gas emission analysis adequately examine the project's greenhouse gas impacts. No modifications have been made to the scope of project or layout and design of the project which would alter the modeling done for the analysis included in the FEIR. Inappropriate threshold for construction period GHG impacts and failure to mitigate impacts Construction period GHG impacts are discussed in response to comments submitted by the applicant during the DEIR public comment period, Response C3-15 in the FEIR (page I1-138). The FEIR was certified by the City Council and in doing so the City Council concluded that the greenhouse gas emission analysis`in the EIR fully and adequately examined the project's greenhouse gas impacts. No modifications to the scope of the•project or the layout or design presented for SPAR or CUP review were made during the course of that review that would necessitate additional analysis or create inconsistency with the analysis contained in the FEIR which the City Council concluded-was adequate. Underestimation of GHG emissions by ignoring black carbon The DEIR relied on guidance from,BAAQMD in addressing proposed project greenhouse gas emissions. BAAQMD does not identify black carbon as an emission source that should be addressed when evaluating greenhouse gas emissions and their cumulative effect on climate change. This issue is further discussed in Response C3-16 in the FEIR (page 11-139). The greenhouse gas analysis contained in the EIR was deemed adequate to examine the project's greenhouse gas impacts by the City Council when they certified the EIR on April 2, 2012. The project plans approved through SPAR and CUP do not include modifications that would impact this analysis. No substantial evidence that project features and mitigation will reduce climate impacts Both Topical Response 13. (page II-33) and individual Response C3-17 (page 11-139) in the FEIR discuss the mitigation measures for reducing the project's greenhouse gas emissions. The FEIR was subsequently certified by the City Council after concluding that the greenhouse gas analysis was adequate to.examine the project's greenhouse gas impacts and no modifications have been made to the'scope, design, or layout of the project that would necessitate further analysis. Neglectsmitigation,measures to further reduce or offset GHG emissions Response C3-18 (page I1-139) includes an in-depth response to a;similar comment raised by the appellant during the public review of the DEIR. Additionally; Topical Response 13 (page II-33) further supports the mitigation measures included in the FEIR for reducing•,theproject's greenhouse gas emissions. In certifying the EIR, the City Council concluded that the greenhouse gas analysis in the EIR fully and adequately examined the project's,greenhouse impacts and no modifications have been made to the scope, design, or layout of the project that would necessitate further analysis. Biology Inadequate,analysis of impacts on wetlands A number of sources are referenced in Responses C3-19-and C3-20 in the FEIR (pages II-140 to 145) in relation to the wetlands analysis included in the EIR for the Deer Creek Village Project. In certifying the EIR, the City Council concluded that the wetland analysis in the EIR fully and adequately examined the project's wetland impacts. No modifications in layout or scope have impacted wetland disturbance'or mitigation and therefdre the analysis contained in the FEIR and certified by the City Council remains adequate: Failure to provide analysis of potentially significant cumulative impacts to biological resources As discussed in response C3-21 (page II-1'45) in the FEIR, the Deer Creek Village Project was found to result in a less-than-significant contribution to a cumulative impact on biological resources. In certifying the EIR, the City Council concluded that the biological analysis in the EIR fully and adequately examined,the'project's biological resource impacts. No modifications to the project through the SPAR and CUP review or as.a condition of approval modify this analysis. Treatment of mitigation 'to,biological resources is unlawful Discussion of the mitigation for impacts to biological resources is discussed in Response C3-22 in the FEIR (page 146). The,City:Council determined that the biological analysis contained in the EIR was adequate to examine the project'sampactsto biological.resources. The Plans approved for SPAR and CUP are in substantial^conformance with the scope of the project analyzed by the FEW for the Deer Creek Village Project and further biological analysis is not required for the project. General Plan Consistency Failure to disclose the project's.inconsistencies with General Plan 2025 Topical Response 4 (page‘II-14) in the FEIR provides a detailed.analysisof General Plan consistency. Additionally, individual Response C3-23 (page II-147) responds directly to the same comment submitted by the appellant during the DEIR review for the project. In certifying the FEIR the City Council found the project consistent with General Plan 2025. Similar findings were made by the Planning Commission in their approval of SPAR and a CUP for the project and associated master sign program. Aesthetics Failureto disclose, analyze, and mitigate potentially significant aesthetic impacts Discussion,of aesthetics is contained in the Initial Study, Appendix A of the DEIR, particularly pages 48-51. This analysis includes a discussion of existing conditions-of the site and surrounding neighborhood and general consistency in land use development;patterns`between proposed development and existing development: Additionally, the FEW analysis references.the Site Plan and Architectural Review process and findings.required for approval of the project, consistent with the adopted:Implementing Zoning Ordinance. These findingswere made by the Planning'Commission in their approval of resolutions 2012-12.and'2012-13 for Site Plan and • Architectural Review for the project and associated master sign program. • Water supply Failure to account for uncertainty in the project's water supply As discussed in Response C1-3 in the FEIR(page I1-87), a Water Supply Assessment for the proposed project is not required by Water Code Section 10910. Based on the General Plan EIR and a.recent update of water supply and demand for the City's 2010 Updated Urban Water Management Plan adopted on June 6, 2011 (UWMP), adequate water is available for the project, as discussed in Subsection 14.d of the Initial Study, pages 61-65 (DEIR Appendix A). Additional detail and analysis is contained in the record and the FEIR was certified by the City Council on April 2, 2012, concluding that the water supply.analysis in the ER fully and adequately examined the project's water supply impacts. Nothing in SPAR or CUP review or as a result of condition of approval adopted by the Planning Commission changes the analysis included in the EIR for the project or necessitates additional analysis on the available water supply. Urban decay and blight Failure to address urban decay and blight impacts The project's DEIR included an in-depth analysis or potential urban decay impacts of the project. Additionally, Topical.Response 14:(page II-42) and individual Response C3-26 (page II-148) respond to comments regarding the,EIR's analysis of the project's potential urban decay and blight impacts as raised during the public review of the DEIR. The FEIR was subsequently certified by the City Council, concluding that the urban decay analysis-in the EIR fully and adequately examined the project'surban decay and blight impacts. No modifications to the project layout or design through the SPAR and CUP review would change the findings of this analysis. Alternatives Failure to examine a reasonable range of alternatives The State CEQA Guidelines require that EIRs include the identification and evaluation of a reasonable range of alternatives'that are designed to reduce the significant environmental impacts of the project while still meeting the general project objectives. The State CEQA Guidelines also set forth.the intent and extent of the alternatives analysis to be provided in an EIR. The>DEIR meets.the-spirit and intent of Section'15126.6 (Consideration and Discussion of Alternatives to the Proposed Project) of the CEQA Guidelines. The City selected three alternatives for analysis in the DEIR to constitute a reasonable range of potentially feasible:alternativesi:that would foster informed decision making and public participation. The alternatives thatwere-analyzed in comparison to the proposed'project include: Alternative A::No,P-rojectAlternative Alternative B: Reduced'Project Alternative Alternative C: Commercial and Residential Care Project Alternative Topical Response 6 and individual Response 0-27 (page II-150) more fully discuss the requirements under CEQA and the adequacy of the analysis included in the EIR for the Deer Creek Village Project. The City Council certified the FEIR and made findings of fact, including findings regarding the adequacy of the alternatives contained within the EIR. Appeal Point #2 ---- The Planing Commission has failed to adequately analyze traffic circulation and parking:in reviewing the application for a Conditional Use Permit. The appeal asserts that the Planning Commission's analysis of the Conditional Use Permit for a reduction in onsite parking requirements and as provided for in Implementing Zoning Ordinance Section 11.065.C. is inadequate because it relies ontraffic analysis contained in the FEIR. The project's traffic analysis was prepared by a qualified traffic engineer and peer reviewed by the City's traffic engineer. Additionally, the analysis contained in the FEIR was reviewed and certified by the City Council on April 2, 2012. The project design and scope of the reduction of on-site parking requirements approved with the Conditional Use Permit was consistent with the analysis contained in the EIR, is supported by General Plan policy to reduce parking for mixed use development, and is consistent with Mitigation Measures AQ-4'which called for reducing on-site parking while meeting requirements of the IZO. FINANCIAL IMPACTS This is a cost recovery project. The,applicant, Merlone Geier, has expended the amount of $464,612.98 on the application for this project, reflecting Fiscal Years 2009-2010 through 2012- 2013. In addition, the applicant is required to pay for the cost of processing the appeal with the exception of the appeal fee of$221.27 which was paid by the appellant. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution denying the appeal and affirming Site Plan and Architectural Review 2. Letter of Appeal and attachments, filed by the Petaluma Neighborhood Association 3. Planning Commission Staff Report, August 14, 2012 4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2012-11 5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2012-12 6. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2012-13 7. City Council Resolution No. 2012-040 8. City.:CouncilResolution No. 2012-041 9. Traffic Mitigation Fee Update, August 2012 10. Public comment letter, Stenros, September 14, 2012 11. Public comment.,letter, Padget, September 18,2012 12. Public comment letter, Petaluma Neighborhood Association, August 13, 2012 13. Master Sign Program 14. Master Art Program 15. Project Plan'Set 11" x 17" and full sized plans • ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA CITY COUNCIL DENYING AN APPEAL BY THE PETALUMANEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION AND AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR'THEDEER:CREEK VILLAGE PROJECT ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS 007-380-005 AND 007-380-027 WHEREAS, Malone Geier submitted,:an application for Site Plan and Architectural Review and Conditional Use,Penmit for the purposes of developing a.36.55 acre property with approximately 345,000 square feet of retail, home improvement, office, services, and fitness center uses for development of the Deer Creek Village Project, "the project"; and WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on May 4, 2009sthe City Council considered the Fiscal and Economic Impact Analysis prepared for the Project per the provisions of Resolution No. 2008-189 N.C.S.; and WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing onJanuary 10,2012, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution.2012-01, recommending that the•City Council not certify an Environmental Impact Report; and WHEREAS, at a duly noticed public hearing on April 2, 2012, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2012-040, certifying an Environmental Impact Report for the Project, in conformance with CEQA; and WHEREAS, at said hearing, the City Council adopted Resolution no. 2012- 041 making CEQA Lndings of_fact, adopting;:a Mitigation Monitoring and-Reporting Program and adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA; and WHEREAS, at said hearing the City Council provided comments to the Planning Commission on items to be addressed as part of the Site Plan and Architectural Review; and WHEREAS,:Site Plan:and Architectural Review and Conditional Use Permit for the project was conducted by the Planning Commission:at a.duly noticed public,hearing on August 14, 2012 in accordance with the City of Petaluma Implementing Zoning Ordinance, Section 24.010; and WHEREAS,.on August 14, 2012 after considering the public testimony and the application materials, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 2012-013 approving the Site Plan and Architectural Review for Deer Creek Village'project, subject to findings and conditions of approval; and • WHEREAS;,at said hearing, after.considering the public testimony and the application materials, the,Planning Commission adopted Resolution 2012-012 approving Site Plan and Architectural Review for the Deer Creek Village Master Sign Program, subject to findings and conditions of approval; and WHEREAS, at said hearing, after consideration of the public testimony and application materials, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 2012-011 approving a Conditional Use Permit for reduction in required on-site parking, subject to findings and conditions of approval; and WHEREAS, on August 28 .2012, the City Clerk received a Letter of Appeal ("Appeal") from the Shute Mihaly WeinbergerLLP- on behalf of the Petaluma,Neighborhood Association challenging the Planning.Commission's approval of resolutions for Site Plan and Architectural Review and Conditional use Permit for Deer Creek Village (File No. 12-APL-0485); and, WHEREAS, on September 13, 2012 public notice of the September 24, 2012 appeal hearing before.the City Council was mailed to all property owners and residents within 500 feet of the subject property and to all other interested parties, and a notice of the September 24, 2012 appeal hearing before the City Council was published in the;Argus Courier on September 13, 2012. WHEREAS, on September 24, 2012 the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the;appeal:and all evidence, written and oral, submitted at the hearing. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City council has considered all evidence presented at the duly noticed public}fearing of this appeal and/or contained in the record"of proceedings on this matter, and on that basis, makes the following findings denying the appeal of the Petaluma Neighborhood Association filed with the City Clerk on August 28, 2012 ("Appeal") challenging.approvalby the Planning Commission'of Site Plan and Architectural Review.and Conditional Use Permit for the Deer Creek Village project("Project"), APNs 007- 380-005 and 007-380-027. BE IT FURTHERRESOLVED that the City Council hereby reaffirms the Site Plan and Architectural Review and Conditional Use Permit approvals for the'Project and authorizes construction of site improvements for the Project contained in said plans based on the findings made below and subject to conditions of approval attached as Exhibit A hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 1. The project as conditioned,will conform to the intent, goals, and policies of the,Petaluma General Plan 2025. Detailed discussion regarding General Plan consistency was included in the FEIR, which was certified by,the City Council on April 2,:2012 (Resolution,No. 2012- 040). Additionally the Planning Commission made findings of General Plan consistency in the approval resolutions for Site Plan and Architectural Review for the project and master sign program-and for the Conditional Use Permit for a reduction in required onsite parking. Plans appfovëd by the Planning•Commission for Site Plan and-Architectural,Review and Conditional Use Permit are consistent withthe scope and design of,the project analyzed under the FEIR and no modifications during this,review or as a result of conditions of approval would create inconsistencies with;the General Plan. 2. The.Project as-conditioned will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of theoonrrnunity because it conforms to the Petaluma.Implementing Zoning Ordinance,CIZO"). The Project site is zoned MU1B, Mixed Use,.and.the Planning Commission in its'Resolution 2012-013 determined that the uses proposed for the Project I - z were consistent with the Mixed use, MU.I B zoning for the site. The project landscaping plan and provisions for tree protection are consistent with IZO Chapters 14 and 17, respectively. The Conditional Use Permit approved by the Planning Commission (Resolution 2012-011) was processed and approved consistent with Section 11.065C of the IZO. Neither the modifications made.to the Project in the course of Site Plan and Architectural Review and Conditional Use Permit review nor the conditions of approval set forth in Exhibit A have modified the Project in any fashion which Would create inconsistencies with the IZO. 3. The project, as conditioned, conforms to the requirements of Site Plan and Architectural Review provisions of Chapter 24.010 of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance as: The project includes the appropriate use of quality materials and harmony and proportion of the overall design. The proposed project uses a variety of exterior materials, including stone, Wood, metal, glass, plaster, tile, split face CMU, and living walls 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 development orients both towards frontages such as North McDowell and interior within the development and between individual buildings. The architectural style is appropriate for the project and compatible with the overall character of the neighborhood. The architectural style of thetproposed project provides transition between existing industrial development to the north;,office/medical uses to the south, and residential development to the east. Additionally, the transition 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 architectural style and siting has also been designed to enhance the future Rainier interchange and undercrossing.connections. The siting ofthe 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 have 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:appropriatefor the project's surroundings. The proposed sign program provides a cohesive and integrated approach to signage for the Deer Creek Village center as a whole. A variety of materials and colors are encouraged but the parameters of the program ensure consistency. The master sign program outlines maximum square footage for each of the 36 tenants, consistent with the parameters of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance. The freestanding signs are designed with colors, materials, and decorative features found in, the architecture of the site. All signs are internally illuminated and have been conditioned to include automatic sensors to shut-off during day time hours and dim during non-business,late night, and early morning hours. Landscaping shall be in keeping with the character or design of the site. 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 landscaping is focused within the 100 foot wide Deer Creek buffer zone and enhances the experience along the pedestrian pathways along the edges 'of this linear open space. Existing trees along the Highway 101 corridor will not be removedias 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 automobiles, off-street automobiles and parking facilities and pedestrian ways shall be designed to promote safety and convenience and shall conform to City Standards. Plans pertaining to pedestrian, 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 automobiles. 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.. 4. The Master Sign,Program, as conditioned, is consistent with the requirements of Site Plan and Architectural'Review-provisions of Chapter 24:010 of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance as:;. The appropriate use of quality materials and harmony and proportion of the overall design. The proposed Master Sign Program„as conditioned, will incorporate materials including stucco, stone Veneer and metal accents thatare in harmony and compatible to the surrounding buildingsand to the style and architecture of the center. The location of each of the,proposed signs as conditioned is appropriate to the buildings for the shopping center. The proposed signs, as conditioned, are in'keeping with surrounding buildings with regards to setbacks, height, and materials. The siting of the structure on the property as compared to the siting of other structures in the immediate neighborhood. The wall signs are proposed below roof lines and placed with sensitivity to the architectural detailing of the buildings. The scale of the;wall sighs is required to be proportional to the individual tenant storefronts. Siting of the proposed freestanding signs is associated with the primary access points to the shopping center and will not interfere with visionsite_triangles at intersections. The bulk, height, and color of the proposed structures as compared to the bulk, height, and color of other structures in the immediate neighborhood. The proposed signage will incorporate materials that are in harmony and compatible to the surrounding buildings. The proposed signs,are in keeping with the architecture of the surrounding buildings and encourage variety in color, materials, and design within the Deer Creek,Village shopping center. As conditioned, the reduced height of the freestanding signs will be more sensitive to.the residential uses on the other side of North McDowell and conditions requiring automatic shut offs and dimmers will reduce impacts from light and glare. • Exhibit A SPAR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Division 1. This Site.Plan and Architectural Review authorizes.construction.of an approximately 345,000 square foot commercial shopping center as shown on plans dated stamped July 25, 2012 and located at North McDowell and Rainier, APNs 007-380-005 and 007-380- 027. 2. Plans submitted for building permit review shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plan set dated stamped July 25, 2012. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit/grading permit revised plans shall illustrate the following modifications: a. All conditions of approval and mitigation measures from the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in the Deer Creek Village Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2004092093) ("FEIR") shall be listed on the first sheet of the office and job site copies of the building permit plans; b. Modify the south elevation of the Bank building to provide more interaction along the interior Main Street (A-14); c. Revise the north elevation of the Grocery Store to increase interaction and pedestrian orientation along North McDowell (A-8); d. Revise landscape plan to?add appropriate landscaping of the corner City parcel at the intersection of-North McDowell and Rainier and along the future Rainier frontage and provide continuity with the project (LP-01); e. Employee showers shall be illustrated for all applicable tenant spaces in compliance with the requirements of Section 11:090C of the IZO and all employee showers shall, have interior access and include bathroom facilities. 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. 11 At least ten electrical vehicle charging stations shallbe shown on site improvement plans and shall°be distributed in groups around the site to provide-convenience in all areas of the shopping center; g. Increase the number,,ofpreferential parking spaces in key quadrants of the project and especially-adjacent;to the office buildings; 1 _ h. Revise landscape plan to increase tree planting along Highway101 corridor to further screen the buildings; i. Redesign conflicting parking spaces at corners of interior parking lot.to ensure unrestricted access (A-1); j. Eliminate freeway oriented signage on the rear facades of the major tenants (A-3A and A-5); k Increase three tier landscaping along North McDowell frontage; 1. Incorporate greater building articulation.between Majors 2, 3, and 4; and m. Incorporate greater articulation on the south elevation of the Fitness Center. 4. Particularattention shall be paid to architectural detailing to improve four sided architecture on all buildings. 5. The project shall be subject to all applicable development impact and other City fees. 6. All mitigation measures as adopted in conjunction with the FEIR are herein incorporated by reference as conditions of project approval. 7. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the plan shall note the installation of high efficiency heating equipment (90% or higher heating/furnaces) and low NOx water heaters (40 NOx or less) in compliance.with policy 4-P-l5D (reducing emissions). 8. No business identification signs shall be permitted on the back/rear of the buildings facing the freeway. 9. Upon approval of project entitlements, the applicant,shall pay the Notice of Determination fee to the Planning Division. The check shall be made payable to the County Clerk. Planning staff will file the Notice of Determination with the County Clerk's office within five days of project approval. 10. Prim-to the issuance of a building or grading permit, all plans shall include the following requirements and all construction contracts shall include the same requirements (or ineasuresishown to be equally effective; as approved by`Planning), in compliance with General Plan Policy 4-P-16: • Maintain_;construction equipment engines in good condition and in propel-tune per manufacturer's specification for the'duration of construction; • Minimize idling time for construction related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor'vehicles, and portable equipment; • Use,alternative fuel construction equipment(i.e., compressed natural gas, liquid petroleum gas; and unleaded gasoline); --� • • Use•add-on control devices such as diesel oxidation catalysts or particulate filters; • Use diesel equipment that meets the CARB's 2000 or newer certification standard for off--road heavy-duty diesel engines; • Phase-construction of the project; and • Limit the hours of operation for heavy duty equipment. 11. Prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit,-theapplicant shall provide a Construction Phase Recycling Plan that would address the reuse and recycling of major waste materials (soil, vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal scraps, cardboard,packing, etc.) generated'bythe construction of the project and in compliance with General Plan Policy 2-P-122 for review by the planning staff. • 12. The applicant shall apply for and obtain a sign'permit prior to installation of each sign and in conformance with an approved master sign program for the shopping center. 13. Subject to applicable law, the Project shall not include any retail use that contains book sales as a primary use and is• arger than 5,000 square feet of gross floor area. 14. Issuance of a building permit is conditioned upon,approval by the City Council of vacation of an existing sewer-easement which underlies a portion of the proposed • Friedman's building (C=2•on the project plans), consisting,of approximately 7350 square feet, ("the Easement"),dedication of a new sewer easement by the applicant over the project property Which is satisfactory to the City Engineer and relocation of the existing sewer main located in,the Easement to the new easement;,all at the expense of the applicant. _ • 15. Approval of the on-site parking layout is contingent on Planning Commission approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a parking reduction of 10%. If said Conditional Use Permit is not approved'the site plan shall be revised to accommodate on-site parking consistent with the parkin •.requirentents as outlined in the IZO and as required to accommodate all individual uses on the site. 16. All work within the public right-of-way requires an encroachment permit from the Public Works department. 17. In the'event,that archaeological remains are encountered during grading, work shall be halted temporarily and a:qualified archaeologist shall be consulted for evaluation of the artifacts and to-recommend future action. The local Native American community shall also..be notified and consulted in the event any archaeological remains are uncovered. 18. Improvement plans shall include appropriate,tree protection measures consistent with General P.lan'policies°and all applicable City regulations to ensure adequate protection of the existing'Oak trees along the southern property line adjacent to Highway 101. 19. The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its officials, boards, commissions,,agents, officers and employees ("Indemnitees") from any claim, action or -pm-- 5 proceeding against Indemnitees to attack, set aside, void or annul any of the approvals of the project. The applicant's duty to defend, indemnify and hold harmless in accordance with this condition shall apply to any and all claims, actions or proceedings brought concerning the project, not just such claims, actions or proceedings brought within the time period provided for in applicable State and/or local statutes. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any such claim,:action or proceeding concerning the project. The City shall cooperate fully in the defense. Nothing contained in this condition shall prohibit the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action, or proceeding, and if the City chooses to do so, applicant shall reimburse City for attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the City. 20. No storage, racking, or uncovered sales area shall be visible from outside of the Friedman's yard enclosure at any time. 21. Operation of the security entrance/exit.to the Friedman's yard shall not include cashiers or provisions for payment for merchandise, but shall act only as a security check for outgoing merchandise. Patrons shall be required to turn off their engines during loading. 22. The applicant shall continue to work collaboratively with staff and the Petaluma Public Art Committee to finalize the master art program for the Project and shall submit the necessary documentation prior to issuance of a building or grading permit that all criteria for public art as outlined in Chapter 18 of the IZO has been satisfied. 23. The applicant shall be responsible for construction and limited term maintenance of a fence and associated landscaping along the rear property lines of those residential properties backing onto-the east side of North McDowell between the southern edge of the Sandalwood Mobile Home Park and Professional Drive and along both sides of Rainier Avenue from North McDowell to Prince Albert. The ultimate design of the fence shall be determined by staff after outreach to said residential neighbors. The fence shall be shown'on improvement plans and shall be part of thetiinitial phase of construction. The applicant shall be responsible for one year maintenance of all new fencing and five year maintenance of all new landscaping located in the'public right-of-way. 24. The applicant shall obtain and install benches from the Petaluma High School metal shop program for incorporation into the project. 25. Enhancedpaving shall be used for all pedestrian walkways and crosswalks to further enhance the pedestrian amenities. 26. Loading areas, vehicles, parking lots, meters, outdoor storage, etc., shall be adequately screened to the extent possible. 27. All planting shall be:nraintained in good growing condition. Such maintenance shall include;where appropriate, pruning, moving, weeding, cleaning, fertilizing, and regular watering:-'Whenever:necessary, planting shall be replaced with other plant materials to insure:continued compliance with the approved landscape plan. ` � I 28. Building permit plans shall include installation of electrical conduit in all buildings to facilitate solar installation. The fitness center building shall also be preplumbed for solar. 29. The Deer Creek Swale and 50 foot development buffer shall be clearly identified on plans • and all amenities, including walkway, art installation, benches, water fountains, bike parking, and kiosks shall be outside of said buffer. 30. Truck traffic for Major tenants shall enter and exit the site on Lynch Creek Way or North McDowell Boulevard and shall not use internal bridges. 31. The project applicant shall work with city staff to explore opportunities for a lighted crosswalk on Rainier Avenue at either Prince Albert or Rushmore. 32. Gooseneck or similar lighting for freestanding signs shall be considered to minimize potential lighting impacts and full use of halo lighting for signs is encouraged. Fire Marshal 33. Provide fire truck turning templates on construction drawings to demonstrate adequate turning for emergency vehicles. Modify site access as necessary to accommodate adequate fire truck turning and access in coordination with the City Engineer and.the Fire Marshal. 34. For the area within the.Major 1/Friedman's yard; a "20 foot wide EVA" shall be lined. (lines showing 20.footlimit) on the pavement and marked at intervals with "No Parking/Fire Lane". We expect the EVA will need to run outside the proposed outside storage piles and will need;clarification/verification regarding the "Loading Berths", grade change, and that.the EVA will be:able to pass through this area unimpeded. No storage shall be allowed over the EVA and a revised Site Circulation System Map. including the proposed EVA with signage shall be submitted for review. We understand that the area between "Major 1 and Dry Shed" is open and drivable and the "hashed area" at one end is a valley gutter not a wall. 35. Minimum fire flow for buildings shall be calculated as specified in the 2010 California Fire-Code'Appendix B, "Fire Flow Requirements for Buildings". Please be advise that if building fire flow calculations cannofbe made at the time of project submittal, the following fire flows shall apply: Commercial, Industrial,.and Multifamily Residential: 2500 GPM at 20 psi residual (available forfirefighting). When building fire flows are submitted, these flows shall be adjusted in accordance with Appendix B. 36. Proof of the required fire flow shall be provided to the Fire Marshal's Office prior to issuance of the building,permit. The FMO shall not accept less than minimum fire flow and,pressure. Ilishall be the developer's;responsibility to make private and/or public improvements-to the system to meet the water flow demands of the project. HO • 37. The two fire hydrants marked along North McDowell that are shown as "Existing Fire Hydrant to be Relocated" shall be moved the appropriate distance necessary to avoid the "road cutaway". This will necessitate adding two hydrantswithin the Deer Creek development at or near the inbound lanes near the Bank and Pharmacy. This better balances hydrant resources within the development and has been discussed with the Project Engineer (Mr. Wayne Leach). An additional hydrant needs to be added back to the plans along the interior road near the Bank's northwest, as shown on previous plans. Hydrant locations for the rest of the site generally look acceptable, but we still reserve the right to adjust and or add hydrants depending on possible changing conditions. The Fire • Marshal's Office will work cooperatively with the developer to provide comments as the site improvement plans are developed. 38. The plans submitted show the approximate "rough" locations where fire department connections (FDC) and post indicator valves (PIV) locations may be located. Revised site improvement plans shall include more detailed.infomiation such as cut sheets for double detector check valves, FDCs/PIVs, along with precise locations. As a reminder FDCs and PIVs should be within approximately 50 feet of a hydrant and it may be necessary to add hydrants and/or move FDCs; and locating these will need to be coordinated with the Fire Marshal's Office. 39. All commercial building/s (or portions thereol)•shall be protected by an automatic fire sprinkler system as required by the City of Petaluma Municipal Code and shall conform to NFPA I'3 requirements. The fire sprinkler system shall be provided with central station alarm system designed in accordance with NFPA 72 and addressable to each building. A local alarm shall be provided on the exterior of the building AND a normally occupied location in the interior of the building. All systems require 3 set of plans to be submitted to the Fire Marshal's Office for review and approval. If any of the structures are three stories or taller;Class One standpipes will be required. 40. The Friedman's store and Shed" will have "high pile storage" and we require any proposed high pile or higher hazard commodities to be reviewed independently by a Qualified Professional Engineer(QPE) or Fire Protection Engineer(FPE). Rack storage and all areas must be fully,compliant with the California Fire Code Chapter 23 (High- Piled Combustible Storage) and NFPA 13 (Standard for Fire Sprinklers), The QPE or FPE must a detailed report to the Fire Prevention Bureau verifying the fire sprinkler systems (including rack storage'area) are compliant with all Chapter 23 and NFPA 13•requirements. Please be advised, this is a.requirement and plans submitted without the'requi'red FPE report will.be..delayed. 41. A plan showing all fire lane signs and red-curbing shall be submitted to the Fire Marshal's Office for approval. This can be integrated•with parking/stripping plan. Be advised, we•reserve the right to request that"No Parking Fire Lane"where no curbs exist or if othervisibility issues arise and warrant this requirement. i ' 42. All buildings shall include lighted address numbers that are clearly visible from the street. Numbers are to be a minimum of six inches (6") high with contrasting background. 43. A Knox box for fire department access for each building shall be provided. Location of the Knox box shall generally be near the sprinkler/riser exterior door and shall be verified by the fire inspector during.inspection. • 44. Provide one (1) fire extinguisher with a minimum 2AIOBC-rating for each 3000 square feet:of office space and no more than 75-feet travel distance from any location to a fire extinguisher, and/or Provide.(1) fire extinguisher with a minimum 2A2OBC-rating for each 1500 square feet-of warehouse space and no more than 50-feet travel distance from any location to a fire extinguisher. Fire extinguishers shall be visible and easily accessible; located in egress pathways, and mounted no higher than 5' from top of extinguisher to finished floor. 45. This review was conducted for the preliminary plan set dated 12/21/12 and if significant changes are made to buildings, EVA's, or access that require additional review; we reserve the right to modify and/or add conditions of approval. Public Works All conditions shall be addressed at the time of improvement plan review by the City and prior to issuance of any construction permits,.unless otherwise noted. Street and Frontage Improvements 46. Street and frontage=improvements shall be constructed as proposed on the application plans and consistent with project phasing, according to City standards and as directed by these conditions ofapproyal. Improvements shall include but not be limited to pavement, curb, gutter, sidewalk, traffic islands, traffic signals, traffic signs,;pavement striping and markers, pedestrian ramps, bike lanes, streetlights, etc. Improvements shall meet accessible standards..Pavement conforms shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The decorative crosswalks at the project access points shall be constructed on private.property, maintained by the property,owner and designed to support vehicle traffic loads. 47. Modifications to intersections, traffic signals and traffic-lanes shall be subject to the project traffic`study,.environmental impact report and the direction of the City Engineer. 481 The minimum pavement section shall be 6-inches of asphalt concrete over 2.1-inches of 'class 2 aggregate base for McDowell Boulevard North.and Rainier:Avenue, 49. "No.Parking"signs shall be placed along McDowell Boulevard North and Rainier Avenue. 50. Street.lights,shall be installed and/or relocated as required by the City Engineer along McDowell-B'orilevardNorth and Rainier Avenue. As an option and at the discretion of the City Engineer, the City may require LED street lights. 51. Traffic control plans shall be prepared in accordance with the.Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. 52. Remove and replace any broken or displaced curb, gutter and sidewalk along the entire North McDowell Boulevard frontage. 53. Any proposed Monument`Signs for the}Deer Creek Village shall be located such that they are out of the required sight distance triangle. The applicant's engineer shall provide sight distance calculations, per Caltrans standards, with the improvement plan and building permit submittals. No monument signs shall be located in the area designated for future widening of the intersection of.N. McDowell and Rainier for Route 101/Rainier Interchange or Undercrossing Project. 54. A.Class I Bike/Pedestrians path (10 feet wide) shall be constructed along the N. McDowell frontage of the project. 55. A.traffic'signal shall be installed at N. McDowell and Professional Drive for mitigating the traffic impacts of the proposed project. 56. Raised median islands shall be installed between Rainier Avenue and Professional Drive and Professional Drive and Lynch Creek Road to prohibit left turns out of the two proposed right in /right out driveways for Deer Creek Plaza.on N. McDowell. 57. Rainier Avenue extension on the west side of N. McDowell shall be constructed up to the proposed driveway to the Deer Creek Village, consistent with project phasing. The west end of this extension shall be constructed as a cul-de-sac (50 feet radius) based on City of Petaluma standards to facilitate Petaluma Transit Buses to make U turns coming out of the Transit Yard. No parking;signs and red curb shall be installed within the cul-de-sac area. The traffic signal at N. McDowell and Rainier intersection shall be modified to accommodate this extension. 58. Provide truck turning:templates on the construction drawings for the proposed pharmacy and demonstrate adequate turning for the appropriate delivery truck vehicle. Modify parking in the area as necessary to accommodate adequate truck turning area. 59. Provide the proposed truck route for the grocery store on the signing and striping plans subinitted°withthe construction drawings. 60. No utility vaults or trees shall be'installed=on the northeast corner,of the Deer Creek Village project since the intersection of N.McDowell and Rainier will be widened for the Rainier Avenue Interchange/ Undercrossing. Grading 61. Grading, excavation and compaction shall conform to the soils report prepared for this site. 62. All above=ground or below-ground,structures (buildings, fences, pipes, conduits, etc.) that are not necessary for the project shall be removed. 63. The applicant shall submit erosion andsediment control plans, a storm water pollution prevention,plan SWPPP) and provide a'copy the signed Notice of Intent('NOI) submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board. A Notice of Termination (NO' shall be submitted to the SWRCB upon completion of the project. 64. The applicant is required to find erosion control and storm water quality inspections by City public works inspectors throughout the life of the construction project, as part of the cost recovery application. Water and Sanitary Sewer Systems 65. Relocate the existing sanitary sewer main as proposed on the site plans and dedicate a new public sewer easement prior to issuance of any building permits. The applicant has submitted an application for abandonment of the portion of the existing public sewer easement that is no longer needed (application number 12-ABN-0417).The abandonment is a City Council approval process and shall be approved prior to issuance of any building permits. 66. All on-site sewer systems except the existing and relocated City trunk main shall be privately owned and maintained and labeled as such on the construction drawings. 67. The trash enclosures with sanitary sewer drains shall be covered and not allow rain water to enter the sanitary sewer system. 68. The on-site water system shall be public and constructed as proposed on the application plan per City standards. 69. Provide signed grantdeeds, legal descriptions and plats for all public easements to the City of.Petaluma for the water main system, including firehydrants,meters and services prior to issuance of a building permit. The easements will be recorded by the City after construction of the utility is complete. 70. The,water;system shall be capable of delivering a continuous fire flow as designated by the fire'marshal. Provide final fire flow calculations for review and approval prior to issuance of a building peniiit. 7. 1. Show gate.,valve;locations and profiles on new City maintained facilities (water and trunk sewer). 72. All landscaping shall meet City Standards for low water use. 1 ...-- 14 Storm Drain System 73. The applicant shall submit detailed;construction plan level hydraulic and hydrology calculations for the on-site storm drain system for review and approval by the Sonoma County Water Agency(SCWA) and City of Petaluma. The calculations shall include the two neW proposed bridges/culverts over Deer Creek. The preliminary storm water calculations submitted as part of the environmental review process concluded that storm water detention should probably be avoided because detention may slow on-site peak runoff and increase:downstream peak flow in the Petaluma River.The calculations shall assess the need for on-site storm water detention, subject to the review and approval by the Cityof Petaluma. Should the calculations determine that on-site detention is necessary, the applicant shall install a storm water detention system designed to detain the 100-year event. The applicant's civil engineer/hydrologist should contact the City Engineer to discuss the scope•of the peer review prior to preparing the final storm water calculations. The final calculations are required to be peer reviewed by the City's storm water model consultant. The City will manage the peer review process. The applicant shall be responsible for funding the peer review process including all time and materials for City staff and its consultants. 74. All storm water systems and calculations shall include detention and treatment systems that meet the requirements of the NPDES, City of Petaluma Phase 11 Storm Water Regulations including Attachment 4 requirements for post construction storm water runoff, as well as City standards. 75. All on-site storm drain systems are to be privately maintained including Deer Creek. Dedicate a hydraulic easement to the City of Petaluma allowing.continued use of Deer Creek to accept runoff from upstream public storm drain systems. Miscellaneous 76. Existing overhead distribution utilities, 12kv or less, along the street frontages and/or traversingthe site'shall be placed underground. 77. Dedicate the required public street right-of-way to construct the proposed:street, sidewalk, and landscaping improvements, etc. required to serve the project, on'North McDowell Boulevard and Rainer Avenue. 78. Dedicate the required public easements for the proposed traffic signal infrastructure and loops at.the'project entrance on Professional Drive. 79. The existing irrevocable offer of dedication for public streets and utilities, as described in Petaluma Parcel Map 170, shall be vacated prior to issuance of any building permits. The vacation requires approval by the City Council. The applicant has submitted application number 12-ABN-048 on 07/24/2012. 1 — L� 80. Dedicate as public right-of-way, the portion of Parcel B to provide the City's ultimate right of way necessary for buildout of Rainier Avenue, subject to City approval, per the existing plan line for the future Rainier`crosstown connector,and roadway project as well as Parcel C for North McDowell Boulevard, per the City of Petaluma Ordinance 1991 N.C'S. 81. A 10-foot wide public utility easement (PUE) Shall be dedicated adjacent to and along all public street right-of-ways as required by the.City Engineer. 82. Record a lot line adjustment or merge the two existing properties (APN 007-380-005 & 027) prior to issuance of any building permits. 83. Utility trenching in any-new'street construction and/or pavement overlayshall require pavement grinding and repaving as described by City Ordinance No. 2266 NCS. 84. Maintenance of the water quality treatment system and any required storm drain detention system shall be the.responsibility of the property owner(s). A financial and operation plan for maintenance, inspection, reporting, etc., shall be submitted for review and approval by the City of Petaluma,and recorded, prior to issuance of a building permit. 85. Public improvement plans shall be prepared for the construction of improvements in the public right-of-way and City utilities on private.property. All improvements shall be designed in accordance with City Standards and Specifications. Joint trench plans shall also be submitted. A public improvement agreement, bonds, insurance and fees shall be required. Provide scanned record drawings prior to the release of the performance bond. The public improvements shall be complete and accepted prior to any final inspection or the issuance of any certificate of occupancy. Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee 86. The number and type of bicycle racks as shown on plans reviewed by the PBAC shall be shown on final plans.prior to issuance of building permit. A minimum of 150 bicycle racks shall be provided, including 80 covered and 70 uncovered. The bicycle racks shall be in generally the same locations as reviewed by the PBAC and should be kept away from trash receptacles, dispersed throughout the larger development, and include separate racks to"serve individual buildings. Post and loop bike racks shall be installed as shown on plans labeled IvUSA-05, and meeting City standards. Applicant is encouraged to use a varietyof 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,specifications. Whenever possible, the applicant shall locate racks near doors and with adequate lighting. 87. Signage shall'be installed at drive and street entrances along North McDowell alerting vehicle traffic to Class I users. HI 88. A minimum 8-foot wide Class I shared use path shall be constructed along both sides of the Deer Creek swale buffer and a loop:path'around the dog walk area shall be installed as an interim use of property within adopted plan line for Rainier interchange project. t. 89. A minimum 8-foot decomposed granite pathway shall be constructed to the rear of the Major tenant buildings, connecting with Lynch Creek Way. The pathway shall be elevated from the adjacent parking area by 6 inches. ThePBAC 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. 90. Crosswalks interior to the project shall be,installed as shown on plans and including at south side of Major 1 and Lynch CreekWay, near the fitness center, across parking lots between Shops D and Grocery, and southern exit from project turning right onto McDowell. These crosswalks shall be differentiated through the use of colored or marked pavements. 91. To enhance safe pedestrian access to the project's McDowell frontage/village aspect of the project adjacent to "Shop C and Medical Building 2", clearly defined crosswalks, signage and barricades shall be installed to guide pedestrians. 92. To the greatest extent feasible, all walkways within the project shall be a minimum of 6- feet wide. 93. The three separate, designated walkways located in the parking areas in front of the Major buildings as.shown on the plans shall be constructed with raised/colored pavement to provide safe convenient passage for shoppers/pedestrians in the east/wst directions from Major 1 to the Medical Office building and from Major l's garden center to Shops B-and Major 3 to Shops A. These walkways shall have a minimum clearance width of 6- feet (after consideration of vehicle overhang) but ideally 8-feet if it can be accommodated, between parked cars to,allow movement of shoppers with carts and pedestrians and strollers. 94. The applicant shall install signs at the intersection of Rainier and McDowell alerting cyclists to use the Class I shared facility instead of riding in the street. 95. Signs indicating "employee and truck delivery passage only" shall be installed at Major Tenants 1, land--4to discourage public:traffic on the west side of retail buildings. 96. Signs shall be installed at the rear of project alerting through truck traffic to pedestrians/bicyclists using the Class I pathway to Lynch Creek Drive. 97. Exterior.lig.litingshall be high quality and specifically placed within the development to guide the way-to`and near exterior bike rack arid bike locker locations, along the dog walking loop, along the Class I path to the rear of the major tenant spaces, and along the Deer Creek swale paths. li 98. All exterior lighting shall provide a"soft wash" of light against the wall and shall be hooded and directed downward with no direct glare. 99. Water fountains, accessible to people and their'dogs/service animals shall be installed at the dog walking loop, along the Class I path along Deer Creek, in the plaza areas between Professional Building,and Medical Office, Between Shops A and B, and near Restaurant A. 100. Public benches shall be installed along Deer Creek, at the dog-walking loop, and behind Major 3 and 4. 101. 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 or other outdoor events. MASTER SIGN PROGRAM CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 102. This Site Plan & Architectural Review authorizes the approval of a Master Sign Program for Deer Creek Village as shown in the approved sign program and as modified by these Conditions of Approval. 103. Plans submitted for sign/building permit review shall be in substantial conformance with the sign program dated stamped July 25, 2012 with the-following modifications: a. Two monument signs;on North McDowell Boulevard in addition to the main pylon sign shall be allowed. Each monument sign shall not exceed ten feet in height. b. The main freestanding pylon sign (P-1) shall be reduced in height to a maximum height of 20 feet. c. All freestanding signs shall utilize push thru letters and have non-illuminated sign faces except for the business name and logo. d. No monument sign shall be permitted along the Rainier,frontage until Rainier Avenue is extended past the Fitness Center. At such time a freestanding monument sign shall be[perrnitted at the project's Rainier entrance and shall be designed to.match the'other monument signs with a maximum height not to exceed ten feet. 104. No business.identification signs shall be permitted on the back/rear ofthebuildings facing.the'freeway. • 105. The applicant,shallapply for and obtain a sign permit prior to installation of each sign. 106. All exterior signs shall be equipped with photo-sensors to shut off illumination during the day and auto=dimmed during non-business, late night, early morning hours. I � I 107. Business owners shall be advised in writing to not authorize construction of signs prior to receiving both Property Owner and City approval. Signs fabricated prior to approval will not be approved for installation if not consistent with the approved master sign program. 108. All work within the public right-of-way requires an encroachment permit from the Public Works department. 109. The applicant shall defend, indemnify-andhold harmless the City and its officials,boards, commissions, agents, officers and employees ("Indemnitees") from any claim, action or proceeding against Indemnitees to attack, set aside, void or annul any of the approvals of the project. The applicant's duty to defend, indemnify and hold harmless in accordance with this condition shall apply to any and all claims, actions or proceedings brought concerning the project, not just such claims, actions or proceedings brought within the time period provided for iii applicable State and/or local statutes. The City shall promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim;action or proceeding concerning the subdivision. The City shall cooperate fully in the defense. Nothing contained in this condition shall prohibit the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action, or proceeding, and if the City chooses'to do so, applicant shall reiniburse City for attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the City. CUP CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 110. This Conditional Use Permit authorizes a reduction in required off-street parking spaces by 10% and up to 25% of the required parking as outlined for individual uses in Section 11 of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance. 1 1 1. Plans'submitted for building permit review shall be in substantial conformance with the Conditional Use Permit request and plans date stamped July 25, 2012. 112. The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its officials, boards, commissions, agents, officers and employees ("Indemnitees") from any claim, action or proceeding against Indemnitees to attack, set aside, void or annul any of the approvals of the project. The,applicant's duty to defend, indemnify,and hold harmless in accordance with this condition,shalfapply to any and all claims, actions or proceedings brought conceiving the project, not just such claims, actions or proceedings brought within the time period provided for in applicable State and/or local statutes. The City shall promptly notify!therapplicant of any such claim, action or proceeding concerning the project. The City shall'.cooperate fully in the defense. Nothing contained in this condition shall prohibit the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action, or proceeding, and,ifthe.Citychocises to do so, applicant shall reimburse City for attorneys' fees and costs incurred bythe City. 113. Further'reduction of on-site parking, up to 25% of the required parking, is encouraged. I °I SHUTE MIHALY ATTACHMENT2 WEINBERGERI.1_l 396 HAYES STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 PETER R. MILJANICH T: 415 552-7272 F: 415 552-5816. Attorney www.smwl aw.com miljanich @smwiaw.com August 27, 2012 Via E-Mail and U.S. Mail City Council City of Petaluma 11 English St. Petaluma, CA 94952 E-Mail: HHINES @ci.petaluma.ca.us • Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Site Plan,and Architectural Review and''Cbnditional Use Permit for Deer Creek Village Project (File No. 09-SPC-0091) Dear Mayor and Council Members: On behalf of the Petaluma Neighborhood Association, and pursuant to section 24.070 of the City of Petaluma Implementing Zoning Ordinance, we request that • the,City Council reverse the Planning Commission's August 14, 2012 approval of the Site Plan and Architectural Reviews and the Conditional Use Permit for the Deer Creek Village project (File No. 09=SPC-0091). We further request that.the City Council order the,Community Development Department to take:no action on the project unless and until the EIR for the Project is revised and recirculated for public review and comment. I. Factual Background Merlone Geier Partners has submitted an application for Site Plan.and Architectural,Review for a mixed-use.development to be called Deer Creek Village ("Project"). The Project proponent also requested a Conditional Use Permit to reduce on- site parking requirements for the Project,and submitted an application:tfor a Site Plan and Architectural Review for a master sign program for the Project. In March 2011,the City of Petaluma released the Draft-Environmental Impact Report for the Project. On April 14, 2011, the Petaluma Neighborhood Association submitted a letter to the City of Petaluma Community Development Department. This I-Ieather Hines August 27, 2012 Page 2 letter explained that the Project is incompatible with the City of Petaluma's General Plan, and is hereby incorporated by reference. On April 22,2011, this firm submitted a letter to the City of Petaluma Community Development Department on behalf of the Petaluma Neighborhood Association expressing grave concerns about the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Project. That letter is hereby incorporated by reference. In December 2011, the City of Petaluma released the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") for the Project. At its January.10,2012 meeting, the City of Petaluma Planning Commission recommended that the.City Council require a revised traffic analysis and recirculation of the EIR before considering whether to certify the•EIR for the Project. On February 17, 2012, this firm submitted a letter to the Petaluma Community Development Department that expressed serious concerns:about the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project. That letter is hereby incorporated by reference. On April 2, 2012,.the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2012-040, certifying the FEIR for the Project, and Resolution No. 2012-041, making California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") findings, adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and adopting a.Statement of Overriding Considerations. On June 18, 2012, the Petaluma Neighborhood Association submitted a letter to • the City of Petaluma Deputy Planning Manager. That letter, which detailed significant flaws in the Final Environmental Impact Report's traffic analysis and mitigation measures, is hereby incorporated by reference. On August 14, 2012, the City of Petaluma Planning Commission adopted;three. Resolutions, consisting of the following approvals for the Deer Creek Village Project: (1) Approving a.Site Plan:and Architectural Review for the Project and authorizing site improvements for the Project, subject to certain conditions of approval; (2) approving a Conditional Use,Permit to modify parking requirements for the Project; and (3) approving a;Site Plan and Architectural Review fora master sign program for the Project. SHUTE, iN[HALY C WL1NN.RGLRur � ' r Heather Hines August 27, 2012 Page 3 H. Basis.for Appeal A. The FEIR's Analysis is Not Supported By Substantial Evidence Of critical importance, the FEIR for the.Project assumes that the Rainier Avenue Extension will be constructed. Significant new information—including-the recent elimination of traditional redevelopment-agencies—shows that there will not be sufficient funding for the Extension project for the.foreseeable future. Without established sources of funding, the likelihood of the Extension's construction is slim at best. The unsupportable assumption that the Extension will,be"built undermines many of the FEIR's conclusions regarding the severity of the Project's traffic impacts. The FEIR also suffers from the following other legal deficiencies: 1. The FEIR omits many impact analyses and provides inconsistent and inadequate explanations for this omission. 2. The FEIR fails to adequately analyze and mitigate the project's significant transportation impacts. a. The FEIR fails to evaluate the project's traffic impact during the a.m. peak period and the weekend midday peak hour. b. The FEIR fails to adequately mitigate the project's significant traffic impacts. c. ,The FEIR underestimates the project's impact on U.S. Highway 101 d. The project's cumulative traffic analysis relics on an inappropriate baseline. e. The FEIR fails to examine the project's impact on pavement conditions. f. The FEIR.fails to evaluate whether the project would result in an increase in the potential for vehicular collisions g. The FEIR fails to adequately analyze and mitigate construction- related traffic impacts. 3. The FEIR lacks;an adequate analysis of the project's air quality impacts. a. The project's operational air emissions appear to be unrealistically low. SI IUTI , NI I I-1AI.Y Ct--WEINBERCLiR �.0 Heather Hines August 27, 2012 Page 4 b. The.FEIR.relies on an unrealistically high threshold of significance for evaluating the project's carbon monoxide impacts. c. The FEIR fails to identify adequatemitigation for the project's construction-related air quality impacts. 4. The FEIR fails to adequately analyze and mitigate the project's impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions.. a. The FEIR's modeling assumptions are unclear b. The FEIR employs an inappropriate threshold of significance for evaluating construction period GHG impacts and fails to mitigate these impacts. c. The FEIR underestimates project GHG emissions by ignoring black carbon. d. The FEIR does not provide substantial evidence to demonstrate that project features and proposed mitigation will be effective in reducing the project's climate'.impacts. e. The project"neglects mitigation measures that could further reduce or offset project'GHG emissions. 5. The EIR fails to adequately analyze and mitigate the project's impacts on biological resources a. The FEIR's analysis of impacts to wetlands is inadequate b. The FEIR fails to provide any analysis of the project's potentially significant cumulative impacts to biological resources. c. 'The FEIR's treatment of mitigation of impacts to biological resources is unlawful. 6.. The FEIR failseto disclose the project's substantial inconsistencies with the Petaluma general plan. 7. The FEIR fails to failed to disclose, analyze, and mitigate potentially significant aesthetic impacts 8. The FEIR and initial study fail to account for uncertainty in the project's water supply. SHUTS MI HA LY Heather Hines August 27,2012 Page 5 9. The FEIR fails to adequately address urban decay and blight impacts associated with the project 10. The FEIR fails to examine a reasonable range of alternatives. Unless the City revises the EIR to remedy these deficiencies, and recirculates the MR for public review and comment, any approvals made on the basis of its environmental analysis are not supported by substantial evidence and are unlawful. B. The Planning Commission Has Failed to Adequately Analyze Traffic Circulation and Parking in Reviewing the Application for a Conditional Use Permit Section 24.030(G)(2) of the City of Petaluma Implementing Zoning Ordinance requires the Planning Commission, before granting a Conditional Use Permit, to consider the traffic circulation and parking impacts of the,proposed Project. Specifically, the Planning Commission must consider: (a) the type of street serving the proposed use in relation to the amount of traffic expected to be generated; (b) the adequacy, convenience, and safety of provisions for vehicular access and parking, including the location of driveway entrance and exits; and (c) the amount, timing, and nature of any associated truck traffic. As discussed above and in this firm's April 22, 2011 and April 2, 2012 comment letters, the FEIR's analysis'of traffic circulation is deeply flawed. Because the Planning Commission relied on the FEIR when considering the traffic and parking impacts required by Section.24.030(G)(2), the approval of the Conditional Use Permit is not supported by substantial evidence. III. Relief Sought by Appellant TheFetaiuma Neighborhood Association requests that the City Council reverse the Planning,Cornmission's August 14, 2012 approval of the two Site Plan and Architectural;Reviews and the Conditional Use Permit for the Deer Creek.Village Project. SHLI I MIHALY C9 -'V1IIN131_RGliRLLp 2� Heather Hines August 27, 2012 Page 6 The Petaluma Neighborhood Association further requests that the City Council order the Community Development.Department to take no action on the project unless and until the EIR for the Project is revised and recirculated for public review and comment. Unless and until the City undertakes such revision, any approvals made on the basis of the FEIR's environmental analysis will be unlawful. Very truly yours, SHUTE, MIHALY &WEINBERGER LLP Peter R..Miljanich 429983.2 SHU"1'E MIHALY QT-WE INBERGERL.i.N 2� � The following previously submitted comment letters are referenced in the appeal letter and attached for reference. • April 22, 2011 • February 17, 2012 • June 18, 2012 Attachments to these referenced letters are not attached, but are available on Grancius and in hardcopy in the appeal file in the Planning Division and in the City Clerk's office. All letters and associated attachments have previously been distributed and are in the record:. ,/_/ 1 • SHU I L- MIHAI._Y E, WEI ` BERCERI_�_� 396 HAYES STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 GABRIEL M.B. ROSS T: 415 552-7272 F: 415 552-5816 Attorney www.smwlaw.com ross @smw{aw.com April 22, 2011 Via entail and hand delivery Heather Hines City of Petalura Community Development:Department 11 English Street • Petaluma, CA 94952 hhines @ci.petlauma.ca.us Re: Deer Creek Village Project Draft Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2004090293 Dear Ms. Hines: We are writing on behalf of the Petaluma Neighborhood:Association to express our grave concerns about the environmental review of the proposed Deer Creek Village shopping center (the "Project"). The Draft Environmental Impact Report("DEIR") fails to meet to meet the standards of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Public Resources Code section.-21000 et seq. for all of the reasons set out below. Unless the DEIR is extensivelyrevised and"recirculated, any approvals made on the basis of its environmental analysis will be unlawful. The/essential defect of the DEIR is its persistent failure to provide sufficient analysis of the Project's potential environmental impacts.. Because, as the Project's Initial.Study admits, the Project will have potentially significant impacts (Initial Study at 4), an EIR is required. But the DEIR analyzes only traffic and air quality impacts, relying omthe.Initial Study for all other impacts. This gaping omission is unjustifiable and the DEIRioffers,only shifting, vague explanations. At the same time, the analysis contained in the DEIR and Initial Study`is riddled with flaws of fact and reasoning. Most importantly, the DEIR completely ignores the Project's serious inconsistencies with the Petaluma General Plan. This Project site is Heather Hines April 22, 2011 Page 2 designated for mixed-use development, but this Project is simply a standard big-box, automobile dependent retail operation. It is not the truly mixed-use, pedestrian-focused project that the General Plan envisioned and that Petaluma deserves. The DEIR must disclose this inconsistency and consider real alternatives. Moreover, the DEIR assumes that the currently illusory Rainer Avenue Connection will be constructed. This inappropriate assumption undermines many of the • document's conclusions regarding the severity of the Project's traffic impacts. And in several instances, the DEIR ignores feasible mitigation measures-or defers the identification of measures until after Project approval. All of these errors add up to a deeply flawed document that must be-thoroughly revised and recirculated before the City may even consider this ill-considered Project. 1. The DEIR Omits Many Impact Analyses and Provides Inconsistent and Inadequate Explanations forthis'Omission. CEQA requires that an EIR analyze all of a project's.impacts. See Citizens to Preserve the Ojai v. County. of Ventura (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 421, 431-32. The DEIR here, however, analyzes.,only two impacts: air quality and traffic. The DEIR attempts to justify this approach in two inconsistent ways. First, it explains its omission of all other impacts by claiming that it is.a "second tier" EIR that relies upon the EIR prepared for the.Petaluma General Plan.. DEIR•at 1-2. This tiering, the DEIR claims, relieves it of any responsibility to consider'impactsthat were'examined inthe'General Plan EIR. Id. Later, however, the DEIR states that various impacts wereromitted from its analysis because the Initial determined that these impacts were not`,potentially significant. DEIR at 1-3. The combination of these explanations leaves the DEIR's approach entirely unclear. The Initial Study makes clear that the DEIR's dual approaches are both flawed. Although the DEIR,claims that it isa "second tier" document, the Initial.Study does not consistently rely,on the General Plan EIR. Several of the important analysis, such as biological resources:and public services, do not even mention the General Plan EIR. There is thus no evidence that the Project's impacts were actually adequately considered in the previous document. The DEIR further claims that the Initial Study found only three potentially significant impacts: aicquality, greenhouse,gas emission s; and traffic and transportation. DEIR at 1-3. Therinitial-Study, however, finds that several other impacts would be significant in the absence of mitigation measures. See Initial Study at 26 (geology/soils), 36;(hydrology/soils), 40 (biological resources), 44 (noise), 54 (public services). An EIR SHUTS: MI1-1At.l' -WI_ I \ [3LRGC=Ki_i.e Heather Hines April 22, 2011 Page 3 may not omit discussion of an impact simply because mitigation measures could reduce it to a less-than-significant level. Thus, according to the Initial Study, the DEIR should have included several further analyses, at least. A careful consideration of the General Plan EIR is likely to reveal that it does not, in fact, cover the Project's impacts. As discussed in Part VI below, the Project:does not meet the General Plan's criteria for mixed-use development. Thus, this Project was not, in fact, included in the General Plan. The DEIR cannot rely on the General Plan analysis, because that analysis never considered the Project. See Bakersfield Citizens for • Local Control v. City of Bakersfield(2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1 184, 1217. The DEIR must be revised to include analyses of all of the Project's potential impacts. II. The DEIR Fails to.Adequately Analyze and Mitigate the Project's Significant Transportation Impacts. A. The DEIRFails to Evaluate the Project's Traffic Impact During the A.M. Peak Period and the Weekend Midday Peak Hour. The DEIR fails,to'.fully evaluate the Project's effect on local'and regional traffic conditions because it focuses on impacts only during the afternoon, or p.m., peak hour, ignoring potential impacts in the a.m. peak and weekend peak hours. The DEW explains that the p:m. period was chosen for analysis not because it is the worst traffic period, but because it is supported by the most complete and conservative data set available for the study area and that similar data was not available for thea.m. and weekend midday peak hours. DEIR at 1V.B-1. The fact that data do not exist is an inadequate reason for failure to conduct the analysis. CEQA requires that a project's impacts must be "painstakingly ferreted out." Environmental Planning and Information Council of Western El Dorado County v. County of El Dorado, 131 Cal.App.3d 350, 357 (1982) (finding an EIR for a general plamantendmentinadequate where the document did not make clear the effect on the phy ical environment). Morning; or a.m., peak hour background traffic volumes and traffic congestion may vary considerably from that in the p.m. peak hour. Unless a project generates no trips or a:very low:number of trips during the a.m. peak hour, both a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic levels should be analyzed. Home improvement centers such as Lowe's generate almost as many trips in the a.m. peak hour as they do in the p.m.peak hour. httpl/www.sandiego.goviplitnnine/b1117triUmanual.pdf, excerpts attached as Exhibit A. OtherProjectsuses including the fitness center would also generate a significant number St-IUTE.f MIHAIY WLIN'B 12G112i.i.i 2 ' 1 Heather Hines April 22, 2011 Page 4 of a.m. trips. These trips may cause greater congestion than the DEIR reports for the p.m. peak at all or some of the studied roadway segments and intersections. Similarly, the.Project is expected to generatemore trips during the weekend midday peak hour than it does during the weekday-p.m. peak hour. As the DEIR's traffic appendix notes, the Project would geherate.985 trips in the evening peak hour and 1,244 trips during the weekend Peak hour. DEIR, Final Traffic Analysis at 2. Consequently, the revised EIR must include an analysis of the Project's traffic impacts during the a.m. and the weekend midday peak hours. Without this analysis, its`conclusions regarding traffic impacts lack the support of substantial evidence. B. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Mitigate the Project's Significant Traffic Impacts. The DEIR concludes that the increase in trips,generated by the Project would result in a significant traffic impact or contribute to a significant traffic impact at several area intersections including: (1) East Washington Street/North McDowell Boulevard; (2) Corona Road/North McDowell Boulevard; and (3)Corona Road/Petaluma Boulevard north. DEIR at IV.B-46, 48, 53. The Project would also result in significant queuing impacts at East Washington;Street/North McDowell Boulevard (southbound right-turn lane). Id. at 50. Finally, the Project, along with other`development in the area, is expected to contribute to significant impacts along certain sections of Highway 101. Id. at IV.B-57. In all of these instances,the DEIR states that no feasible mitigation measures exist and impacts at these locations would remain significant and unavoidable. Id. The DEIR provides no explanation for its failure to include any mitigation for these significant Project impacts. When an EIR'concludes that a project will have a significant impact, as it does here, CEQA requires the lead.agency'to adopt all feasible mitigation, even if this mitigation will not reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(A);:(discu ssion of mitigation "shall identify mitigation measure's for each significant environmental effect identified in the.EIR") see also Woodward Park Homeowners Ass'n, Inc.. v. City of Fresno (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 683, 724("The EIR also must describe feasible measures that could minimize significant impacts."). Mitigation certainly-existsthat would reduce the Project's trip generation and such measures would also, therefore, reduce the Project's significant traffic impacts on area roadways; intersections and Highway 101. Forexample, the EIR cou_ld_evaluate,the feasibility, ofreducing the amount of on-site parking since excessive parking supply can exacerbate problems with traffic congestion. In addition, the Project could be required to SHUTlit v IHALl' ;...._WEINBERGERu.uv ZJ Heather Hines April 22, 2011 Page 5 contribute to°public transportation in the area, especially those transit lines that serve the Project site (e.g., Sonoma County Transit or the City's para-transit program). Reducing parking and funding public transportation are feasible and effective methods for reducing the Project's significant traffic impacts. C. The DEIR Underestimates the Project's Impact on U.S..Highway 101 As discussed:above, the DEIR concludes that the Project, together with trips generated by cumulative development, would have significant impacts on Highway 101. Yet, the DEIR falls short in its.analysis of impacts on Highway 101 because it incorrectly assumes that very few of the trips generated by the Project would travel on the freeway. The Project would;generate almost 1,000 trips during the p.m. peak hour. DEIR TableIV.B-13. Yet, the DEIR assumes that, at most, 79 (or'just8 %) of these trips would travel on Highway 101. Id. (Tables IV.B-6 and IV.B-17). Currently there are no hone improvement superstores in Petaluma. See "Most Favor Friedman's Store,"Pulse of Petaluma, The Press Democrat, July 1, 2010 available at-http://pulse-of- petaluma.blogs.petaluma360:com/10484/most-favor-friedman%E2%80%99s-store/, • attached as Exhibit B. The.closest such stores are in.Cotati•and Santa Rosa. Consequently, a home improvement superstore, such as that proposed by the.Project, will draw customers from as far north as the city of Sonoma and as far south as Novato, since neither of these communities have home improvement superstores. (Telephone conversation with P. Francis, April 7, 2011). Inasmuch as Highway 101 is the only north-south freeway within Sonoma County, motorists from these communities will travel on this freeway to access the shopping center. The DEIR's assumption that only eight percent of Project-related traffic would travel on the freeway during the p.m. peak hour is at odds with the reality of the.local market. The•DEIR should be revised to use a more realistic projection of freeway usage.by Project traffic. At the very least, a revised DEIR must include the regional market share assumptions underlying its traffic projections, and must piovide evidence and reasoning to justify the assumptions. • D. The Project's Cumulative Traffic Analysis Relies on An Inappropriate Baseline. The DEIR's analysis of cumulative transportation impacts assumes that certain roadway improvements, including the-Rainier Avenue Project will be constructed„ The document, however, contains no evidence that these highway projects will be SHUTli. VlIHA1 Y (27' - 'L NPARG:GRI∎J, Heather Hines April 22, 2011 Page 6 constructed and operational by the cumulative buildout date.' DEIR at IV.B-26. Rainier Avenue is an east-west arterial connecting eastern institutional,commercial, and residential uses with North McDowell Boulevard. Although the City's General Plan contemplates improvements to this roadway, including freeway interchange access, this project requires, but has:not yet received, Caltrans approval. DEIR at IV.B-7, 26. Nor, as the DEIR makes clear, has the ultimate design of Rainier Avenue interchange been configured and the full right-of-way for the project has not yet-been acquired. Id. at IV.B-63. There is simply no:evidence that these roadway improvements will be operational, as the cumulative traffic impact analysis assumes, especially given the severe fiscal constraints currently facing California and local governments. This reliance on the unsupported assumption regarding the Ranier Avenue Project is a fatal flaw in the DEIR's analysis, because it undermines the accuracy of the baseline. Whether the traffic impacts ofa project have been adequately analyzed in an EIR depends in part on whether the document relies on an appropriate.baseline. Here, the DEIR's assumes that the Ranier Avenue Project will be in place, reducing.congestion. Thus, the document starts with a baseline level of congestion is lower than it would be without the Ranier Avenue Project.. The DEIR then adds the Project-generated traffic to this baseline. The result of that operation, which determines the significance of the Project's impact,is also artificially low. The DEIR thus understates the Project's cumulative traffic impact. CEQA does not-allow this approach. In the recent case of.Sunnyvale West Neighborhood Assn. v. City of Sunnyvale (2011) 1190Cal.App.4th 1351, the Court of Appeal,invalidated,an EIR that made precisely the same error made here. In that case,the'City of Sunnyvale had certified an EIR that measured the project's impacts against a baseline of traffic conditions in the year 2020; these conditions assumed;a future scenario where: (1) development had occurred according to the city's general plan,,and.(2) "numerous roadway improvements in.the ro'ect+area; were in place b the year 2020 . .. .." Id. at 1361. In a lengthy analysis, the P J (, � _ P__. Y Y g Y Y , court.held•that1his;approach violated CEQA as a matter of law: "The stature.requires the impact of any proposed project to be evaluated against a baseline of existing It is impossible-to verify the accuracy of the cumulative traffic analysis because the DE1R.doesnot identify the year of the cumulative analysis. The Petaluma General Plan's planning horizon is 20251 If the DEIR authors relied on a date other than 2025 for the.cumulatwe impact analysis, it Will be impossible to verify planning assumptions and conclusions: SI-IL'TEJ MIHALY C7--WEINI3ERGERIJ.I' \ / 2 Heather Hines April 22, 2011 Page 7 environmental conditions, which.is the only way to identify the environmental effect specific to the project alone." Id. (citations omitted) In light of CEQA's mandates, as explained by the Sunnyvale court, the DEIR was clearly required to evaluate-the effect that past, present_and future land use projects would have on the local and regional transportation system as it exists today. The DEIR must be revised to include this analysis. E. The DEIR Fails to Examine the Project's Impact:on Pavement Conditions. Shopping centers require extensive deliveries by heavy-duty trucks. The heavy- duty truck trips generated by the proposed Deer Creek Project(both for construction and for on-going deliveries) will cause incremental damage and wear to area roadways. Yet, with the exception of a cursory discussion of impacts to one roadway -- Lynch Creek Way --, the DEIR does not address the effect the trucks serving the shopping center would have on pavement conditions. Road condition is an important factor in the overall capacity and operational characteristics of the regional roadway system. Roadways with poor pavement often result in a slowing of traffic as well as a marked increase in the potential for accidents as motorists attempt to avoid potholes. Sonoma County roads are already notoriously poor, rated worst in the Bay.Area for six straight years according to the,Metropolitan Transportation Commission: See The Press Democrat, Watch Sonoma County, Bumpy Roads Ahead for Rural:Residents" available at http://www.watchsonomacountv.com/2010/I l/transportation/bumpy-roads.ahead-for- rural-residents/, attached:as Exhibit 3. Due to state and local,budgetary constraints, it is unlikely that funding will be available to adequately maintain state and local roads. The revised DEIR,should assess the existing conditions-of area roadways and Highway 101;and assess how construction and operation of the Project will,impact these highways. If impacts are:determined to be significant, the DEIR must;identify mitigation (e.g., contributing fees for on-going road maintenance) capable of eliminatingior minimizing these impacts. F. The DEIR;Fails to Evaluate Whether the Project Would Result In an Increase-in-,the,Potential For Vehicular Collisions The DEIR fails to examine the Project's potential to increase motor vehicle-related accidents. The"document identifies the existing collision history for study area intersections"and,deterniines that three intersections currently have collision rates that are more than twice as'high as the average. These intersections are: SIiU'1 ii I1IdAI.1' •-\VVEIh13 FRG ER1,1/, k 4 Heather Hines April 22, 2011 Page 8 Old Redwood Highway (Petaluma Blvd N.)/Industrial Avenue-Stony Point Road Intersection Collision Rate 1.13 (State Average rate .43) Professional Drive/North McDowell Boulevard Intersection Collision Rate .30 (State Average rate .14) East Washington Street/North McDowell Boulevard Intersection Collision Rate 1.39 (State Average rate .43) DEIR at 1V.B-18, 19. In light of the elevated.accident rate at these intersections, the DEIR should have analyzed the Project's potential to increase accidents at these and other area intersections, and along Highway 101. To this end, the revised DEIR should include an accident risk analysis to determine if the;level of safety (in terms of accident rates and severity index) needs improvement due to'the increase in Project-related traffic. Inasmuch as the area experiences pedestrian,bicycle"sand transit activity, the accident risk analysis must also identify any conflict points„between vehicles and any other mode. C. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze and Mitigate Construction- Related Traffic Impacts. The document fails to examine the Project's construction-related traffic impacts. Instead,.it includes a cursory statement that the truck and automobile traffic associated with the Project's construction period would add to'the existing traffic volumes along North McDowell Boulevard and Highway 101. DEIR at IV.B-46. The DEIR then concludes'that, because=construction-related traffic would be less than the,Project trip generation.at'thetime the"site'is operational, it would not affect the overall level of service along these (pathways, and impacts would be less than significant. Id. The DEIR's logic is flawed. The Project's operational impacts would be significant at certain locations and therefore the Project's construction-related,operations could also impact traffic conditions.. The DEIR makes clear that numerous intersections innthe area would operate at unacceptable levels of service with the addition of Project- related.traffic. See DEIR Tables IV.B-15 and IV.B-17 . Consequently, the addition of slow-movingheavy-duty:'construction equipment and vehicles traveling along these SHUT , MIHALY U'EIiNBERGERLU Heather Hines April 22, 2011 Page 9 roadways and Highway 1 01 certainly has the potential to contribute to localized periods of traffic congestion. Moreover, these impacts cannot be considered short-term since construction is scheduled to occur over a 12 to 15 month period. DEIR at IV.B-46. Because the DEIR contains no analysis of the Project's construction-related traffic impacts, its conclusion of insignificance is not supported by substantial evidence and therefore cannot be sustained. The revised-DEIR must describe specifically how nearby streets, intersections and Highway 101 would be impacted by construction of the Project. III. The DEIR Lacks an Adequate Analysis of the Project's Air Quality Impacts. A. The Project's Operational Air Emissions Appear to Be Unrealistically Low. The proposed Project would include about 350,000 square:feet of commercial and retail uses. The DEIR acknowledges that the Project's operational emissions represent the majority of the Project's air quality impacts and includes emissions from areas sources (such as fuel combustion from space and water heating and evaporative coatings) and mobile sources (suchras customer, delivery and employee traffic). DEIR at IV.0-16. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District's ("BAAQMD" or "District") June 2010 CEQA Guidelines ("Guidelines")contain detailed instructions on how torevaluate and measure air quality impacts from.land development projects. As a,starting point, the Guidelines contain screening criteria to d'eterniine if the project.may have potentially significant impacts. In evaluating the proposed Project against the BAAQMD screening criteria, it appears that the DEIR may have substantially underestimated the Project's operational emissions. For example, under,the Guidelines an 87,000 square foot "home improvement superstore"'is;:the conservative screening criterion for determining whether the proposed project would result in potentially significant impacts.2 See BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines at 3-1 =3:3, Table 3-1. Although the proposed Project is about four times larger than the home improvement superstore identified in the Guidelines' screening criteria, the DEIR determines that the Deer Creek Project's increase in emissions would be less than the BAAQMD thresholds of significance. DEIR atIV.C= 2 1 he BAAQMD developed-screening,criteria to provide lead agencies and project applicants with.a conservative indication of whether the proposed project could result in potentially significant air quality impacts. If f the screening'criteria:are not met by a proposed project,.then the lead agency or applicant would need to perform a detailed air quality assessment of their`project's,air pollutant emissions. These screening levels are generally representative=of new development,on greenfield sites without any form of mitigation measures taken into consid'erationi. Id.. SIIUT II, Nil IHAIN J,,.w\VIiI \ B,fRGERlip Z ��P • Heather Hines April 22, 2011 Page 10 24. Specifically, whereas the BAAQMD threshold of significance is 54 pounds per day of ROG and NO„,the DEIR determines that the Project would'generate 50 pounds per day of each of these pollutants. DEIR at IV.0-24. We question how such a large project can generate so little air emissions. Unfortunately, neither the DEIR or its air quality technical appendix provide the necessary detail to evaluate the validity of the air quality analysis. The revised DEIR must provide the necessary•assumptions relating to each of the pollutant sources (both area and mobile). If, as seems apparent, the DEIR preparers omitted certain emission sources, our used inaccurate operating assumptions,the air quality analysis must be It is.likely that this new analysis will determine that the Project's air quality impacts would be significant. In that event, the revised DEIR must identify feasible mitigation•measures"capable of minimizing or eliminating these impacts. Finally, because the DEIR,determines that the Project's cumulative.airquality impacts would be significant:(at IV.0-27), it must also identify mitigation measures for these cumulative impacts. CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4. B. The'DEIR Relies on an Unrealistically High Threshold of Significance For Evaluating`the Project's Carbon Monoxide Impacts. The DEIR inappropriately concludes'tha't the Project would not result in any local carbon monoxide ("CO")'impacts despite the fact that several intersections and Highway 101 would'e'perience extensive traffic congestion upon implementation of the proposed Project. DEIR at IV.B-46,48, 50,53, 57 and IV.0-19. The document asserts that dispersion modeling of CO emissions is only necessary when the total hourly volume of an intersection affected by a proposed project exceeds 44,000 vehicles per hour. DEIR at IV.0-19. This is an absurdly high standard as no intersection could.possibly accommodate 44,000 vehicles per hour. According to a registered traffic engineer, the lane.capacity ofa freeway is 2,000 vehicles per hour. So,by the DEIR's reasoning, it would take 22lanes•of a roadway to accommodate 44,000 vehicles in one hour. If each approach at intersection gets 50% of the green tine, then both streets would need 22 approach lanes. Telephone conversation with Tom Brohard, Brohard Engineering Inc, April 8, 2011,;The threshold of significance effective means that no imaginable project. could ever haye,a.significant impact to CO. Use of this standard thus allows the City to avoid;meeting CEQA's core requirementsof disclosing environmental impacts and mitigating them. The threshold is plainly inappropriate. The DEIR must be revised to evaluate the Project's CO impacts using more:reasonable criteria. SHUTS) MIHALY �....-\UEINBERGLR1 U 2 - 1 Heather Hines April 22, 2011 Page 11 C. The DEIR'Fails to Identify Adequate Mitigation For the Project's Construction-related Air Quality Impacts. The DEIR's approach to mitigation for its significant construction-related air quality impacts suffers fronlitwo serious flaws. First, the DEIR fails toIdentify all feasible mitigation measures.as.required by CEQA. CEQA Guidelines §15126.4. Second, it lacks the necessary evidentiary support to ensure that the Project's significant construction-related air quality impacts will actually be mitigated, as required by CEQA See CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4;see also Sacramento Old City Assn. v. City Council of Sacramento (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1011, 1034. The DEIR concludes that the Project's construction-related air quality emissions would be significant and thereforoproposes certain;mitigation°measures. DEIR at IV.C- 21. Specifically,the document recommends the implementation of the BAAQMD's "basic" air quality measures? Id. The DEIR touts these relatively insubstantial measures in concluding that construction of the proposed Project's impact on air quality is less than significant. DEIR at IV.0-21. Yet, the DEIR fails to acknowledge that the BAAQMD Guidelines contain an additional list of measures that are recommended to be implemented when a lead agency determines that a project's construction-related impacts would be significant. See BAAQMD Guidelines at,8-2, 8-4. Because the Deer Creek DEIR determines that.the Project would result in significant construction-related air quality impacts, it should have recommended the implementation of the District's additional control measures. Id. at 8-5. The DEIR similarly fails to quantify the emission-reduction potential from each of the,mitigation measures it does identify. Consequently, it lacks the necessary evidentiary support for its conclusion that the Project's'construction-related air quality impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant leve1.4 We can find no logical explanation for the document's failure to quantify the measures' emission reduction potential.. Indeed, the Guidelines specifically recommend that emission reductions from control measures be quantified and even provides detailed guidance for such analysis. Id. at 8-2 through 8-6. 3 The BAAQMD June 2010 CEQA Guidelines recommend that all projects implement its Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, "Whether or not construction-related•emissions exceed the applicable thresholds of significance," See BAAQMD Guidelines at 8-4. a The BAAQMD recommends the quantification of air quality measures and provides detailed guidance in this regard. BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines at 8-6 and Appendix B. SHUTL' MIHAY ,�\rEl NBERG[Rici t p 1 Heather Hines April 22, 2011 Page 12 The DEIR must be•revised to include all necessary mitigation,to minimize or eliminate entirely the Project's construction-related air emissions and provide quantified support for this emission reduction. IV. The DEIR Fails to Adequately Analyze and Mitigate the Project's Impacts Related to Greenhouse Gas-Emissions. As described in detail below, the DEIR's treatment,of the Project's impacts related • to greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions is fatally flawed. First, the modeling assumptions used.to support the DEIR's analysis are unclear. Second, the DEIR employs an inappropriate threshold of significance for evaluating construction period GHG emission impacts and,fails to mitigate those impacts. Third, the DEIR provides an incomplete analysis of greenhouse gas emissions by ignoring black carbon emissions. Fourth, the DEIR.fails to provide evidence to demonstrate that Project features and proposed mitigation will effectively reduce impacts related to.GHG;emissions. Finally, the DEIR fails to analyze recognized mitigation measures that could reduce the severity of the project's climate impacts. 'Without.making substantial modifications to the document and recirculating it for further public.comment„approval.of the:project.would violate CEQA in several respects;and'would seta dangerous precedent for local governments' CEQA analysis of greenhouse-gas emissions. Most importantly, approval would allow the Deer Creek project to proceed without adequately reducing the project's significant contribution to the acute problem of climate change. The State of California has recognized the enormity of the problem of climate change and has determined that wemust reduce emissions of greenhouse gases to their 1990,levels or below. AB 32 and other state legislation have set the state on the path toward those reductions. Nevertheless, we will not achieve those necessary reductions if we continue to approve,new sources of emissions without dramatically reducing or offsetting- hose.emissions. By requiring analysis of the GHG emissions attributable to each new development project, CEQA provides the best opportunity to ensure;ihat such'new development does not undermine our efforts to reduce our existing level of`emissions. A. 'The DEIR's Modeling Assumptions Are Unclear The DE1RR`uses air dispersion modeling to predict Project-related GHG emissions. DEIR at.1V.0-23., However, the;DEIR.fails to present-a clear description of themodeling assumptionsvused for the,analysis. For example, the'DEIR is vague regarding emission reductions applied forcertain project features (suchas pedestrian and bicycling facilities) thatare, incorporated into the modeling process. DEIR at IV.0-23 ("[M]itigationaoptions SHUT II, NIIHAI.N --AX'Fs I I3 L'R L R I,l' 2 �1 Heather Hines April 22, 2011 Page 13 in the model were used to.account for project features that provide walking and bicycling opportunities at the.project.site:"). Such modeling:assumptions must be clarified so that readers and decision-makers may understand how emissions estimates were derived. B. The DEIR Employs an Inappropriate Threshold of Significance For • Evaluating Construction Period GHG Impacts and Fails to Mitigate These Impacts. The DEIR acknowledges that.BAAQMD provides guidance regarding the evaluation of GHG-related impacts associated with construction. DEIR;at IVIC-24. This guidance directs project applicants to quantify and disclose expected construction emissions and to incorporate Best Management Practices ("BMPs") as applicable. BAAQMD Guidelines at 8-7. These BMPs include, but are not limited to, such measures as using alternative fueled construction vehicles/equipment of at least 15 percent-of the fleet, using.at least 10 percent focal buil ding-materials,,and-recyclingor reusing at least 50 percent of construction waste. Id. Unfortunately, the DEIR completely ignores the agency's guidance. Instead, the DEIR inexplicably applies the BAAQMD's operational threshold for GHG emissions;of 1,100 annual metric tons. DEIR at 1V.C-25. Given the BAAQMD's explicit guidelines for treatment of.GHG•ernissions during construction, the DE1R's approach is inappropriate. Agency guidance specifies an approach that reduces construction-related impacts'through BMPs regardless of emission levels. Id. By relying on a seemingly arbitrary threshold of significance, rather than following established guidance, the DEIR shows a blatant disregard for actual impacts. In sum, the DEIR must be revised to include applicable BMPs that will reduce the Project's construction-related GHG emissions. C. The DEIR.Underestimates Pro ject GHG Emissions by Ignoring Black Carbon. The DEIR underestimates project GHG emissions because it fails to account for the project's black carbon emissions. Black carbon, which is a component of soot, is produced by incomplete combustion and is a significant contributor to global warming: Althougliscombustion produces a mixture ofblack.catbon and.ofganic carbon, the proportion,of black carbon-produced!by burning fossil fuels, such as diesel, is much greater than that produced by burning biomass. See:Global and Regional.Climate Changes Due to Black'Carbon, Ramanathan and_Carmichael, Scripps Institution of Oceanogra Shy, March 2008; attached as Exhibit D. Black carbon heats the atmosphere in a variety of ways. First, it is highly efficient at absorbing solarradiationand in turn heating the'surrounding atmosphere. Second, S i11HA1.1' Heather Hines April 22, 2011 Page 14 • atmospheric black carbon absorbs reflected radiation from the surface. Third, when black carbon lands on snow and ice, it reduces the reflectivity of the white surface which causes • increased atmospheric warming•as wellas accelerates the rate of snow and ice melt. Fourth, it evaporates low clouds. Notably, black carbon is often associated with other aerosols such as sulfates, which greatly increases its heating potential. Id. Due to black carbon's,short atmospheric life,span and high global warming potential, reducing black carbon emissions offers an opportunity to mitigate the effects of global warming trends,in the short term. Id. It is estimated that black carbon is the second greatest contributor to global'warming behind carbon dioxide. See id. In developed countries, diesel..combustion is the main source of black carbon. Diesel emissions include a number of compounds such as,sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, carbon:monoxide, and particulate matter.. Diesel particulate matter is approximately 75 percent elemental carbon. See EPA; 2002 Diesel Health Assessment, available at httu://ww'w.scribd.com/doc%1011457,Health-Assessment-Document-for- Diesel-Engine-Exhaust EPA-May-2002, excerpts attached as Exhibit E. Project construction will require the use of diesel powered heavy duty trucks and construction equipment, and project operations will also undoubtedly entail diesel emissions generated by trucks making deliveries to businesses in the project area. Thus, it is important that black carbon emissions be addressed as part of a new DEW for the project. D. The DEIR Does Not Provide Substantial Evidence To Demonstrate That Project Features And Proposed Mitigation Will Be Effective in Reducing The Project's Climate Impacts. CEQA's central mandate is that "public agencies shouldmot{{approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects." Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Comm. v. Bd. ofPorl Comm'rs-(2001)91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1354 (quoting Pub. Res. Code § 21002). CEQA requires lead agencies to identify and analyze all feasible mitigation, even if this mitigation will not reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(A) (discussion of mitigation measure "shall identify mitigation measures for each significant environmental effect identified in the EIR"). Mitigation under CEQA can include: (a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. (b). Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its-implethentation. SI-IU°I'IT, NIIHAD' CY--WIIIN1WRGlRnI:v Heather Hines April 22, 2011 Page 15 (c) Rectifyingsthe impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment. (d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action. (e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. CEQA Guidelines § 15370. The effectiveness of a project's proposed mitigation must be established based on substantial evidence. Gray v. County of Madera (2008)167 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1115-18; see also San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City& County of San Francisco (1984)151 Cal.App.3d 61, 79 (measures must not be so:vague,that it is impossible to gauge their effectiveness). Here, the documentiprovides:quantitative estimates of emission reductions,ostensibly,achievedby the project mitigation measures. DEIR at IV.0-28. It estimates total emission reductions due to mitigation of four percent of the Project's emissions in direct, indirect, and vehicular emissions. Id. Yet neither the text of the DEIR nor Appendix.S provides any support, let;alone substantial evidence, for this estimate: The text fails to mention how emission reductions were estimated. Appendix J includes a list entitled"`Mitigation'Measures Selected" which summarily asserts percent reductions in direct and indirect emissions and an unstated amount of reduction in vehicular emissions, but too.fails to explain why the percentagesare.appropriate estimates. Under CEQA "such a bare conclusion without an explanation of its factual and analytical basis is insufficient." San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife;Rescue Ctr. v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 736. "This requirement enables the decision- makers and the public to make an`independent, reasoned judgment' about a proposed project." Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa v. 32nd Dist. Agric: Assn (1986) 42 Cal. 3d 929, 935 .: The DEIR's conclusooy analysis does not provide that supporting evidence for the measures'relied on mitigate the project's climate•inipacts. E. The Project Neglects Mitigation Measures That Could Further Reduce or Offset Project GHG Emissions. The.DEIR acknowledges that project-level and cumulative impacts related to GHG emissions will be significant and unavoidable. DEIR at 11-10 through 13 and IV.C- 28'. With this'significance determination comes CEQA's mandate to identify and adopt feasible mitigation measures that would reduce or avoid the impact. CEQA Guidelines § i5126.3(a)(1}.see)also-Woodward Park, 150 Cal.App.4th at 724 ("The HR also must SHUT 11) MiHAIV CY' -WIIIiNI? LROERit 2 �2� Heather Hines April 22, 2011 Page 16 describe feasible measures that could minimize significant impacts."); Berkeley Keep Jets Over the By Comm., 9.1 Ca1.App:4t1 at 1354 ("[P]ublic agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects." ) (quoting Pub._Res. Code § 21002). Accordingly, CEQA.requires lead agencies to identify and analyze all feasible mitigation, even if this mitigation will not reduce the impact to a,level,of insignificance. CEQA Guidelines § 151.26.4(a)(1)(A). Here, not only does the DEIR fail to identify all feasible measures::available, it also fails to propose mitigation measures identified specifically as appropriate for reducing GHG emissions at this project site by the air quality consultant for this Project. DEIR Appendix J-3:at"Mitigation Measures Selected." For example, the report recommends measures to reduce solid Waste related GHG emissions. Id. Yet, the DEIR entirely ignores this measure and.fails to include it'as part of Mitigation Measure AQ-4. Given that the measures identified.in.Appendix J-3 were incorporated into the model to estimate expected emission reductions,the DEIR's failure to identify in those mitigation measures means that the model has,overestimated the reduction that will be realized, and underestimated the Project's actual impact. This error must be corrected. In addition, the DEIR fails to propose a variety of mitigation measures identified • by other agencies and CEQA practitioners as feasible mitigation that would reduce Project emissions or offset those:enmissions:by reducing.emissions elsewhere. Several sources of GHG emission mitigation measures are readily;available on the Internet. See, e.g., CAPCOA, CEQA and Climate Change, App. B, excerpts,attached as Exhibit F; California Department of Justice, The California Environmental Quality Act: Addressing Global Warming Impacts at the Local Agency Level, available at <http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/pdf/GW_mitigation_measures:pdfl, attached as Exhibit_ G,•Governor's Office of Planning and Research, CEQA and;Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change Through,California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review, available at <tittp€//Www opr.ca.gov/cega/pdfs/june08'-eega,pdfl, attached as Exhibit H; Sacramento:Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, Draft GHG Measures, available;at <http://www.airquality.org/climatechange/AQMDGuidanceForGHGReduction.pdi , excerpts,attached as Exhibit I. Examples of measures that the Citythas not included the DEIR include the following: SH.UTE, N11HALI' WEINBERGERu� Heather Hines April 2Z 2011 Page 17 • Ensure thatpublictransportation will serve the site, byconstructing.bus stops or other facilities and funding the transportation agency to include site on routes if necessary. • Ensure that shuttle service to mass transit uses low-emission, alternative fuelrvehicles. • Require use of a.catalyzed diesel particulate filter on both new and existing diesel engines. Because black carbon is a component of diesel particulate matter, strategies that reducer particulate matter will also reduce black carbon. • Require the Project to minimize and recycle construction-related waste. • Requiring;the,Project to generate all or a portion of its own power through alternative means, such as photovoltaic.arrays. • Require the Project to generate all or a portion of its own power through alternative means, such;as photovoltai •arrays. • Use salvaged,and recycled-content materials`for building, hard surfaces, and non-plant landscaping materials. Use the combination,of construction materials with the lowest carbon footprint. • Use passive heating, natural cooling, and solar hot water systems. • Construct the'most energy-efficient buildings possible,to decrease heating and cooling costs. • Require the use'of only Energy Star heating;codling, and lighting devices and appliances. • Prohibit the use ofincandescent light bulbs for interior lighting. • Providep-ioritized parking for electric and hybrid vehicles. • Charge employees for parking and subsidize alternative transportation. • Reduce available parking. • Require the use of"cool pavement" that reflects more solar energy. Such pavement can-inarkedly reduce heat islands, have been used effectively in California and S I-I U l"TC N I I HA I.Y -\\'IiINRERGERLP (1.4 Heather Hines April 22, 2011 Page:18 elsewhere. In fact, new building standards in California, called "CalGreen", will require use/of such pavement in certain instances. • Purchase"green electricity"from solar, geothermal, wind, or hydroelectric sources through green tags. • Require vehicle fleets operated by commercial occupants of project buildings to be composed.of low emission and alternative fuel vehicles. AU of these measures would result in direct-reductions in emissions that would otherwise be attributable to the.Project:_ In addition, through a combination of other on- siteand off-site measures, the agency could require all aspects of the Project to be "carbon neutral." For example„the City could also.establish a mitigation fee program to fund GHG emission reduction or sequestration projects to offset emissions from this project and other projects in the City. The fee could be used to fund a wide variety of emission reduction or'sequestration projects in the City: By funding local emission reductions, such a.program would reduce GHG emissions, while providing local side benefits, including reducing co-pollutants generated along with GHGs, such as ozone precursors and particulate matter; and generating local"green”jobs. Another important aspect of such mitigation would be the adoption of an off-set requirement for any reductions that could not be achieded directly. CEQA specifically envisions/such offsets for the mitigation of GHG emissions. CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(c)(3) ("Measures to mitigate the significant effects of greenhouse gas emissions may include . . . [o]ff-site measures, including offsets that,are not otherwise required"). Emissions could be offset either through financial contributions to sustainable energy projects or through the purchase of carbon credits. Such programs are.increasingly common and raise no issue of infeasibility. y:.. The,EIR'Fails?to Adequately Analyze and Mitigate the Project's Impacts on Biological Resources The DEIR's treatment of potential impacts•to the site's biological resources is inadequate because (I) it fails to adequately analyze impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and,special,status species'and (2) it defers identification of measures:to mitigate those impacts: The DEIR relies on an Initial Study prepared for the Project in March 2010 to conclude that project-related impacts to'biological resources would be less-than- significant. DEIR;atIV.A-1. However, the;'lack of analysis in the DEIR is not justified by the•analysis/provided,in the Initial Study. SHUT M1HAL1' Heather Hines April22, 2011 Page 19 The proposed project is located on undeveloped property containing.81 acres of wetlands and other.jurisdictional waters, including vernal pools. DEIR at III-28. In addition, as the Initial study for the proposed project acknowledges, despite the site's disturbed nature, the project has the potential tosupport four special-status species known to occur in the area and thatareknown to use similar habitats in the region. Initial Study at 42. Despite the ecological value of the existing environment, the DEIR concludes that the Project•will not have asignificant�impact on biological resources. The evidence in the DEIR does not support this conclusion. A. The DEIR's-Analysis of Impacts to Wetlands Is Inadequate The DEIR recognizes that there are-federally=protected wetlands on site that will be impacted by the Project. DEIR at II-15;, However, the DEIR concludes that the project's impacts to these resources will be,less than significant in part because the project would avoid impacts to wetlands to the extent practicable. Id. The DEIR also relies on the Project's proposed preservation and enhancement of Deer Creek to conclude that impacts to wetlands would be mitigated to less than,significant levels. DEIR at III- 28. This reasoning suffers from several flaws. First, the DEIR is vagueabout the Project's avoidance of impacts to wetlands. The DEIR states that "certain areas of the project site are identified as jurisdictional "'but then fails to specify what jurisdictional areas would be altered:and what areas would be preserved. Thus,the DEIR fails to describe the extentand.severity of project-related impacts,to wetlands. While it is apparent from comparison of DEIR'Figure III-14 and Initial Study Figure 3 that all of the vernal pool.areas would be filled, the impacts to Deer Creek are less clear. The,Project includes a 50-foot buffer on each side of Deer Creek. DEIR at I11-28. However, the Project-proposes to develop pedestrian and bicycle trails, exercise stations, outdoor:seating, and eating,areas within the "buffer." DEIR at 111-28 and I11-29. Not Only could the:construction;of improvemeiitsiand.the improvements themselves impact the wetlands, butpresumably heavy use of the area by people using the trails can,damage the wetlands as;welll'.`Thus, in this case, the;"buffer" serves neither to avoid impacts to wetlands and nor t'o'protect;the wetlands or resources within them. Second, the proposed preservation and enhancement of Deer Creek includes no provision for'nioniteringthe restoration area to ensure that the native plants become permanently established. If invasive and non-native species are not removed from the area, it is entirely probable that these species will spread in thcrestored portion.of site, thus`eliminating'the benefit of the enhancements. SHUT F Ml HA IN WIEINBERGI=Rc+.v Heather Hines April 22, 2011 Page 20 Under CEQA,,the City's deferred analysis of these potentially significant impacts is unlawful. Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296,307. Proper analysis of these impacts must be included in a revised EIR for the Project. B. The DEIR Fails to Provide Any Analysis of the Project's Potentially Significant Cumulative Impacts to Biological Resources. CEQA requires,lead agencies,to disclose and analyze aproject's "cumulative impacts," defined as "two:or more individual effects„which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” Guidelines § 15355. Cumulative impacts may result from a number of separate projects, and occur when "the incremental impact ofthe project is added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably=foreseeable probable future projects," even if each project contributes only "individually-minor" environmental effects. Guidelines §§ 15355(a)-(b). A-lead agency-must prepare an EIR if a-project's-possible impacts, though "individually limited,"prove "cumulatively considerable." Pub. Res. Code § 21083(b); Guidelines§ 15064(i). Extensive case,authority highlights the importance of a thorough cumulative impacts analysis. In San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society v. Metropolitan Water Dist. of Southern Cal. (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 382 for example, the court invalidated a negative declaration and required an EIR be prepared for the adoption of a habitat conservation plan and natural community conservation plan. The court specifically held that the negative declaration's "summary discussion of cumulative impacts is inadequate," and that"it is at least potentially possible that there will be incremental impacts. . . that will have a cumulative:effect." Id. at 386, 399. see also Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford(1990) 221 Cal.App.3d at 728-729 (EIR''s treatment of cumulative impacts on water resources was inadequate where the document contained "no list of the projects considered, novinfomration regarding their expected impacts on groundwater resources and no analysisiof the cumulative impacts"). In contravention of these authorities; the DEIR provides no discussion of the Projeet's;cumulative`impacts on biological resources. The DEIR provides,a list of related projects but then stops,short of analyzing cumulative impacts from the proposed Project in combination with'the related projects. DEIR at 11-14 and 15 (addresses only project- level impacts); Initial Study at 43 (no discussion'of cumulative impacts). The DEIR thus completely-ignores the cumulative effects of recent development approvals and potential future',approvals in the City: For example, the DEIR acknowledges that.the Project would resultin a lossof foraging habitat for special status birds. Initial Study at 42. Yet, the`DEIR' fails to evaluate-the cumulative loss of foraging habitat that would result from SHUTE_ NiIHIALI' WEINBERGFRr.��' Heather Hines April 22, 2011 Page 21 all of the identified related projects. A;revised EIR must evaluate the impacts of.the Project when combined with.all other development projects in the City to analyze potential cumulative impacts to biological resources, including habitat for special status species. C. The DEIR's Treatment of Mitigation Of Impacts to Biological Resources Is Unlawful. To ensure effectiveness, mitigation measures proposed in an environmental document must be "fully enforceable" and must not be so undefined that it is impossible to gauge their effectiveness. Pub. Res. Code § 21081.6(b); CEQA Guidelines § • 15126.4(a)(2)); San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City & County of San Francisco (1984)151 Cal.App.3d 61, 79. Further, mitigation may deferred only if there is a reason or basis for the deferrahand the measures contain specific performance standards that will be met. San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v County of Merced (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 645, 670-71. Here, the City's,mitigation measures are wholly • insufficient. For example, the DEIR's purported mitigation,of impacts to special status birds is limited to avoiding;direct disturbance by construction activity during breeding season. DEIR at 1I-14. The DEIR does nothing to protect these species during the non- breeding season and simply ignores the impacts:caused by the day-to-day operations of a 36-acre retail/office park. Such incomplete, ineffective°mitigation does not comply with CEQA. CEQA Guidelihesv!§ 15126.4(a)(1)). In addition, the DEIR asserts that the applicant's compliance with existing law and other agencies' permitting procedures will'ensure adequate mitigation. For example, the DEIR assumes that permitting activities of the Army Corps ("Corps") and the Regional Water Quality Control Board ("RWQCB") will suffice,as mitigation,for impacts to wetlands. Mitigation Measure,B1O-2 (DEIR at I1-15) (applicant is required to comply with ACOE and RWQCB requirements to mitigate for impacts to wetlands), The City's reliance on compliance with the permitting-activities of other agencies is unwarranted, where, as:here, no valid reason is given for deferring the identificatiomof concrete, specifi'eImitigation until after approval of the Project. San Joaquin Raptor, 149 Cal.App:4th at 670 (no'valid reason for deferral where designing mitigation measures is not infeasible'or'impractical prior to project approval). Here, the DEIR fails to provide assurance that,compliance with the permitting requirements of other agencies will suffice to mitigate the Project's impacts on the biological resources. Imshort, the<DEIR's,analysis of impacts to biological resources understates the Project's-potentialuto significantly affect special status species,sensitive habitats and wetlands. `Even-the,applicant s own Biotic Assessment provides substantial evidence that SHUTE, MlHALY L —•WEI,NI3ERGERItE 12 11 Heather Hines April'22, 2011 Page 22 • a fair argument exists that impacts to these resources maybe significant. At the same time, the DEIR fails to provide effective, enforceable measures to mitigate such potentially significant impacts. To comply with CEQA, the City must prepare an EIR fully analyzing the Project's potential impacts to these resources and identifying effective mitigation measures. VI. The DEIR Fails to Disclose the.Project's`Substantial Lncousisteneies with the Petaluma General Plan. An EIR must analyze-a project's consistency with applicable land use plans. CEQA Guidelines Appx. G § X(b). Any inconsistency between the project-and such plans must be disclosed as a significant impact on the environment, and mitigation to reduce or avoid that-impact.Must be identified. See, e.g., Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124-.Cal.App.4'th 903, 930, 934. The-DEIR briefly discusses only a few-of the relevant Petaluma General Plan policies in Chapter IV-C, but otherwise fails to identify potential inconsistencies between the Project and the General Plan (or between the Projeet and any other applicable plan or policy). Instead, it relies on the Initial Study, which includes a somewhat lengthy, but ultimately inadequate discussion. The City has just completed a long;General Plan update process, including many public hearings and has adopted a General.Plan. Now; after only a short time and no appreciable change in circumstances, the City is proposing to-ignorethat entire, carefully considered process and-claim that this Project as consistent with the General Plan. An overarching thence of the General Plan is the encouragement of mixed use development and of using land inside the City's Urban growth Boundary more efficiently. This proposal, a big-box retail format centered on a single retail use, contravenes the spirit and letter of the General Plan's policies. Moreover, there may further plans and policies that,apply to the Project site; the DEIR has completely failed to provide this analysis. Uliirnately, it is the task of an EIR, not the public, to do so. The major inconsistency between the Project and the General Plan concerns that Projecfsite'sdand use,designation. The General Plan designates the site as"Mixed-Use 'I (2.5 maximum FAR)." This classification "requires a robust combination of uses, including retail, residential, service commercial, and/or offices." .Ina mixed use project thatmeets.the General Plan's standards, "[d]evelopment is oriented toward the pedestrian,with parking,provided, to the extent possible, in larger common areas or garages. The General Plan contains a discussion of what constitutes mixed-use.in Chapter_9: "Mixed Use is a land use classification that supports multiple uses at a single site. Such uses may-include residential, retail, service, commercial and office..-.The retail portion of mixed-use projects is usually made upofconvenienceshopping, food service, SHU II_ \-1CI-i'AI..1' \V'EINRERGIIRut Heather Hines April22, 2011 Page 23 and potential personal and-business services, oriented primarily toward the residential and business occupants of the development: there is synergy between retail and non retail in a mixed use project. Retail is normally limited to the ground floor, which assures access and a degree of visibility." .General Plan at 9-6. Clearly the project as proposed falls short of the General Plan's clear requirements and its.guidelines for mixed use development. Contrary to these requirements,the Project consists of astandard,formula big box retail center with the overwhelming majority of uses in the form of large format box stores and retail shops and services. The other uses proposed are not sufficient to prevideia "robust mix. Moreover, in light of the proposed parking and lack of transit and pedestrian connectivity, there is no way to characterize this development as "oriented toward the pedestrian." The mixed use designation is an essential part of the General Plan. It projects that mixed Use development will expand from I% of the City's acreage to 6% over the Plan's buildout. Compare General Plan at 1-2 with id. at 1-9. According to the General Plan: "As compared to the existing land use distribution shown in Chart 1-1, the key land use changes are the increase in residential and mixed.use land areas. Additional mixed use land will allow for greater;'flexibility in Downtown, Central Petaluma, and along major arterial corridors." General Plan at 1-9. The Project's obvious inconsistency with this key pillar of the adopted general Plan is plainly a significant impact that can only be mitigated through substantial changes to the Project: The EIR must be revised to disclose this_inconsistency.and identify appropriate mitigation. 1 I The General Plan also;mandates that "[s]trong entries are another important element of community design, as their character creates the image Petaluma presents upon arrival. Significant gateways or points of entry to the city occur along Highway 101 and most of the arterials:" General Plan at 2-2. Contrary to this provision, the Project provides for truck deliveries at the rear of the big box stores, adjacent to Highway 101. DEIR:at IIL 18 and Figure III-10. This plan meansthat Petaluma will present loading docks,"storage areas,:and truck parking to visitors on arrival This-is surely not the gateway'.that the General.Plan envisioned„and is plainly inconsistent with.the Plan. The General Plan further requires that intersections should be maintained at Level of Service D or lower. General Plan at 5-12. The Project would bring several intersections to Levels of Service well below D. See, e.g., DEIR Table IV.B-18, Again, thisa clear inconsistency that the DEIR should have addressed. Each of the inconsistencies identified above represents a potentially significant eiwironniental impact The DEIR inust'be revised to disclose•and analyze these impacts, SHUTII, M1H'ALl' ti =\V�LINBL RC:LR �.�.v /la Cji Heather Hines April 22, 2011 Page 24 and'to identify mitigation measures to reduce or avoid them. Moreover, the Project may not be approved in the face of such an inconsistency. "The propriety,of virtually any local decision affectingyland use and development depends upon consistency with the applicable general plan and its elements." Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors el 990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 570. VII The DEIR,Fails to Failed to Disclose,.Analyze, and.Mitigate Potentially Significant Aesthetic Impacts The Draft EIR completely fails to include a description'of the Project's visual and aesthetic,impacts. Instead, it relies on the inadequate analysisin the Initial Study. That analysis does not addressthe.complete change that the Project would bring to the appearance and existing conditions of the site. The DEIR's conclusion that the Project's aesthetic impacts would be:less"than significant lack the required substantial evidence. The site is currently open:space, devoid of structures, vehicular access, parking, lighting and signs. TheInitial Study recognizes that it is visible from many locations, including..Sonoma Mounta nand Highway 101. Initial Study at 49. The Project would construct numerous structures, signs, lighting, landscaping, and traffic facilities. These "improvements" would obviously degrade the appearance and quality of the site. The height and massing of the various.structures, as well as a 30 foot high pylon sign, two 15 foot high monument signs and.additional intersection improvements along Mc Dowell Boulevard.would similarly, degrade the appearance of this section of road. The DEIR and the Initial Study, however, both ignore these impacts, and so lack evidence for their conclusions'that the effect would be less than significant. Similarly, the DEIR totally fails to analyze impacts associated with increased light and glare. The Initial Study states that there are currently no sources of light and glare on the Project site Initial Study at 49. It, moreover,.acknowledges that the Project would lead:to increased light and glare.. Id. In then concludes that-this increase would be less than significant(Initial Study"at 48), but provides absolutely:reasoning or analysis to supporf.tliis'conclusion. The DEIR is,totally'inadequateon the subject of light and glare. VIII. The eDEIR and Initial Study Fail to Account for Uncertainty in the Project's Water Supply. The Initial Study determines that the General Plan EIR adequately analyzed the Project's.impacts related,to water supply, and found that sufficient.supplies would be available. Initial Study at 61_. As discussed in Part I above, however,The Project is not in fact in the General'Plan EIR's projections; therefore,this DEIR may not rely upon that previous analysis. Even if the General Plan EIR did encompass this Project, SHUT E MIHAL.I' C; --WFINRERCERl.i.v • Heather Hines April 22, 2011 Page 25 however, further analysis:would be required: the Initial Study makes clear that circumstances have changed since the General Plan EIR's analysis. These changes necessitate new analysis in a revised DEIR. Under CE QA, an:EIk must demonstrate that sufficient water supplies are available for a development project,,and must consider the environmental impacts of providing that • water. Vineyard-Area Citizens,for Responsible Growth, Inc. v City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal. 4th 412, 431. If"it is impossible to confidently determine that anticipated future water sources will be available, CEQA requires some discussion of possible replacement sources or>alternatives,to•use of the anticipated water; and of the environmental consequendes of those contingencies:" Id. at 432. The City of Petaluma acquires most of its water supply from the Sonoma.County Water Agency ("SCWA"). According to the Initial Study, aftet<the General Plan EIR was certified, the National Marine Fisheries Service adopted a Biological Opinion that "could potentially have an impact on water provided to ineetsurniner month peak demands" of SCWA's water contractors, including the City of Petalutha. Initial Study at 63. The Initial Study states:that"it is not known atthis'time what actions may propose or implement in response to the.Biological Opinion." Initial Study at 63. In other words, SCWA's approach to water supply isnow uncertain. CEQA is clear: when a project's proposed water supply is uncertain, the EIR must identify an.alternative supply and consider the impacts of that tapping that source: Vineyard Area Citizens, 40 Cal:4th at 432. Here, the circumstances of SCWA's ability to serve of Petaluma's demands have-plainly changed, and supplemental`analysis is required. The EIR must be revised to meet CEQA's standards regarding the analysis of water supply. That revision,moreover, must use an accurate measure of the Project's;water demand.. The similar'Regency project had'an.estimated demand'of 13.065 million gallons per:year. .Draft EIR.for,East Washington Place Project at 4.8-17. The current Piojectis`expected'to use;more water than the Regency project, as it will include a health club; which will add substantial demand. IX. The DEIR Fails>to Adequately Address Urban Decay and Blight Impacts Associated with'the Project The DEIR makes:clear that°the.Project has'the,potential,to_result in significant urban decay. DEIR atV-4, 5: Despite this acknowledgement, the DEIR completely fails to analyze the environmental impact of this potentialdecay, let alone meet CEQA's SHUTF., MIHALY .�V F.: N B E R G Heather Hines April 2Z 2011 Page 26 requirements by indentifyiiig mitigation. Moreover, the likelihood and severity of the potential urban decay-are grossly understated by the limited scope of the DEIRand Urban Decay Analysis. In Bakersfield:Citizens,. 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, thecourt expressly held that an EIR must analyze a project's potential to cause urban decay if there is substantial evidence showing:that the project may lead to such impacts. The court pointed out that CEQA requires the project proponent to,discuss the project's economic and social impacts where"[a]n EIR may trace a•chain of cause and effect from a proposed decision on a project through anticipated economic or social changes resulting from the project to physical changes caused in turn by the economic and social changes. CEQA Guidelines §§ 15131(a) and 15064(f). Bakersfield Citizens,concerned a proposal to constructtwo Wal-Mart Stores within three miles of each other;and recognized that such a concentration of discount retail uses could have an environmental impact: the Wal-Mart's could,cause economic harm to local retail outlets, which in turn.could lead to physical deterioration.. The court concluded that such blight impacts are an essential part of'CEQA review. The Bakersfield Citizens court also noted that environmental review must also consider cumulative blightimpacts. In other words, it is necessary toi analyze the blight impacts of the 1proposed-project together with other past, present and:future projects in the area. 124 Cal.App.4th at 11-93. The DEIR_fails-to fallow the clear direction of Bakersfield Citizens. Its Appendix C, "Urban Decay Analysis," concludes that the proposed Project,together with other likely retail projects, "could result in conditions consistent with urban decay." DEIR Appx. C at 37. This conclusion understates the magnitude of the Project impacts. For example, its study area is artificially limited to include only the Petaluma Trade Area even'thoughthere is an existing.Lowe's in"Cotati less than ten miles away. Moreover, the information used in the study is out of date, as conditions have changed substantially since-2009'. The DEIR, moreover, refuses to consider the potentially significant environmental impacts of these-conditions. Instead, it explains its way out of such,an analysis, citing the Petaluitia zonifig,code:and vague,qualitative aspects of market conditions. DEIR at V-5 through 7. The.DEIR,however, may not simply brush off its own economic study without actual evidence. The Urban Decay Analysis clearly provides a fair argument that there could,beenvironmental impacts related to urban decay. The DEIR therefore must SHUTS, X411liMIX --\X'EINN)LRCLRw Heather Hines April 22, 2011 Page 27 provide analysis•of those impacts. Its current approach, of ignoring,impacts with no substantial evidence, does not meet CEQA's standards.. The Project could alsocause urban blight through its increased traffic and localized air pollution (as a result ofqueuing) alone. Traffic could depress property values, drive people and businesses away from Petaluma, and create a downward spiral of urban blight. These,inipacts<were`.not analyzed. The DEIR must be:revisedto includ'e.a complete analysis of the potential environmental impacts?stemming.from urban decay. This analysis must encompass an adequately large:study,area(e.g. Northern Marin County to at least Rohnert Park). The threshold of significance,must recognize the possibility that urban decay could be caused by the,deterioration of existing usesFin the area as a result,of the impacts and nuisance factors generated by the Project,rsuch as trafficgand noisor by the type of economically- induced blight discussed in Bakersfield Citizens. Until it includessuch analysis, and the . required mitigation measures, the EIR cannot support approval of the Project. X. The DEIR Fails to Examine a Reasonable Range of Alternatives. Under CEQA, an EIR must analyze a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project. A reasonable alternativeis one that would feasibly attain most of the project's basic objectives while avoidingor substantially lessening-the project's significant impacts. See Pub. Res. Code § 211000b)(4); CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(a), Citizens for Quality Growth v.,Cty of Mount Shasta (1988) 198 Cal. App. 3d 433, 443- 45. The DEIR's consideration of alternatives does not meet this structure.. The DEIR does include a "Reduced,Project Alternative"`(DEIR at VI-10), but this proposal is simply a straw man. The`reduced" alternative does not, in fact, reduce any of Project's significant impacts to a less'than significant level. Atrue.alternative would involve development reduced to a level,.that would actually serve the purpose of CEQA'-s alternatives requirements—reducing or avoiding the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts. Unless,and until such a alternative is analyzed, the EIR will remain insuffieientto support:Proj'ect approval. CONCLUSION For all of;the.reasons discussed above, the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Project-Is wholly inadequate.under-CEQA. It must be thoroughly revised to provide analysis of, and:mitigation'for, all of the Project's impacts. This revision will necessarily require that the EIR be=recirculated for further public review. Until this EIR has been reviSed,and recirculated,.:tl e Project may not lawfully be approved. S H<✓'`I`1_J Ml I-Iry LY -\V'EINBI_RCERu.v Heather Hines April 22, 2011 Page 28 Very truly yours, SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP IP Gabriel M.B. Ross J n Carmen Borg Exhibits VASrwOIAvulI dmuVPNAADEERVDEIR commem letterdoc. SIIUTL) MIHALY C27-- -\V'EI \ BLRGLRlip 1 List of Exhibits Exhibit A: San Diego Municipal Code, "Land Development Code"Trip Generation Manual, excerpts. Exhibit B: Pulse of Petaluma, The Press Democrat, 2010, "Most Favor Friedman's Store." Exhibit C: Watch Sonoma°County, The Press Democrat. 2010, "Bumpy Roads Ahead for Rural Residents." Exhibit D: V. Ramanathan and G. Carmichael, 2008, "Global and Regional Climate Changes Due to Black Carbon." Exhibit E: EPA, 2002, Diesel Health Assessment, excerpts Exhibit F: CAPCOA,2008,"CEQA and Climate Change" Appendix B, excerpts Exhibit G: California Department of Justice, 2010, The California Environmental'Quality Act: Addressing Global Warming Impacts at the Local Agency Level. Exhibit H: Governor's Office of Planning and Research, 2008, "CEQA and Climate Change:.Addressing Climate'Change Through California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) Review" Exhibit I: Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, 2009, Draft GHG Measures \\Smw01\vol I data\PNA\DEER\Exhibits to DEIR Con-intents\List of Exhibitsv2.doc S H U T S M I H A LY `- WEI \ $ EfZGER �_� ) 396'HAYES'STREET,.SAN FRANCISCO,.CA 94102 T: 415 552-7272 F: 415 552-5816 www.s mwl aw.tom February 17, 2012 Via FedEx Mayor David Glass and Members of the Petaluma'City Council 11 English Street Petaluma, CA' 94952 Re: Deer Creek Village Project Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No.2004090293' Dear Mayor and Council Members: We submit this letter on behalf of the Petaluma Neighborhood Association to provide comments on the Final Environmental Impact Report("FEIR") for the Deer Creek Village shopping center (the "Project"). After reviewing the FEIR, it is our position that the document fails to resolve the myriad legal deficiencies identified in our April 22, 2011 submission to the City, which is by this reference incorporated herein. The FEIR therefore fails to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq.; the CEQA,Guidelines, California:Code of Regulations, title 14 § 15000 et seq. ("CEQA Guidelines"). Each of the inadequacies that we identified in our April 22 letter remain in the FEIR. Of critical importance, the FEIR, like the DEIR, continues,to assume that the Rainier Avenue Extension will be constructed. This inappropriate and'unsupportable assumption undermines many of the document's conclusions regarding the severity of the Project's traffic impacts. Significant new information—including the recent elimination of traditional redevelopment agencies by the state legislature and_the,California Supreme Court—shows that there Will notbe sufficient funding for the Extension project for the foreseeable future. Withoutestablished sources of funding, the likelihood of the Extension's construction is slim at best. Thus, as explained further-below, the EIR must be r'evised..to include analysis of traffic impacts, including cumulative impacts, without construction of the Extension. It must then be recirculated for public review and • Petaluma City Council February 17, 2012 Page 2 comment. Unless and until the City undertakes such revision, any approvals made on the basis of its environmental analysis'will be unlawful. The City's own Planning Commission recognized this flaw in the FEIR at its January 10, 2012 meeting, and prudently recommended that the Council require revised traffic analysis and recirculation before considering whether to certify the EIR for the Project. I. Funding Constraintsx and Lack of Concrete Plans Mean that Rainier Avenue Extension is Unlikely Ever to Be Constructed. According to the FEIR,the traffic analysis conducted for the Project assumed that the-Rainier Avenue Extension would be built. FEIR at II-23. The FEIR claims that since the,Exterision is included in the•City's General Plan, which was adopted in 2008, it is a "reasonable assumption" that the Extension would,be in place in the long-term. Id. However, all of the evidence in the record, including recent developments eliminating redevelopment:funding„indicates that construction of the Extension is not likely to happen in the reasonably foreseeable future. A 20.08 Petaluma report from Fehr and Peers estimated the cost of constructing the Extension at $75-million. See Fehr and Peers, City of Petaluma Traffic Mitigation Fee Program Update 2008.at p. 76, included as;Attachment A. Of this total cost, approximately $50 million is slated to come from City-coffers, and $10 million from the Petaluma Community Development Commission ("PCDC"), the City's redevelopment agency. See id.; FEIR at I1-23'._ However, given the recent,legislation eliminating redevelopment agencies (see California Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos (201 1) 53 Cal. 4th 231), this $10 million is no longer available to advance development of the Extension project. The City does not even have the•resources to fund its,share of the improvement, much less make up the $10 million that redevelopment was.going to fund. The City's recent draft;application to the California Public Utilities Commission ("PUC") for the Caulfield Lane Extension,.illustrates the City's severe fiscal constraints largely brought on by the economic downturn. Draft Application of the City of Petaluma for;an Order Authorizing.theePermanentRelocation of One At-Grade Crossing of the Tracks of the Sonoma-Marin,Are Rail Transit District at 4-13 (approved by City Council on December 14, 2011), included as Attachment B. The City has implemented budget cuts:for four consecutive years and faces increased costs of doing business. Id. at 4.14. In the Caulfield draft, the City"states that "it is impossible to predict whether .,. [the roadway improvement]...,. anticipated in;the2025 General Plan will ever Materialize." Id. Thus, it is clear that the'General Plan's mention of a project is no guarantee of construction, contrary to the assettions'7ofthe FEIR. Here, the City faces equally costly and SHUTE, MIHALY c? WEINBERCERur Petaluma City Council February 17, 2012 Page 3 challenging circumstances with the Rainier Avenue Extension, yet the FEIR ignores this reality. The FEIR also points to development impact fees as-a source of funding for the Extension project. FEIR at'II=23, Yet, the,City is.considering reducing new development fees, including traffic'impact fees. City of.Petaluma Agenda Report Concerning Development Fees„December 19, 2011, included as Attachment C. According to the staff report for the aforementioned meeting, the City's current Traffic Impact Fee account balance is approximately 1.7 million dollars. Id., Attachment 2, p. 19. With the real prospect that the City will reduce traffic impact fees on future development projects, the"City,cannot expect to accumulate the money to construct the Extension in the foreseeable future. The FEIR further points to the City's commitment to fund a Project Study Report ("PSR") and continuing;design work for the Extension pro ject as evidence that the City is committed to future implementation of the project. FEIR at II-24. However, this commitment of funds amounts,to less than 11 million dollars; a far cry from the total project cost. The Extension is only in the very preliminary planning,stages and its design is therefore unknown. As acknowledged in the FEIR, the Extension and related improvements are still "undergoing planning-level"evaluation ... and are not fully funded by City or approved by Caltrans for design and construction." FEIR at 11-23. Indeed, according to representatives of'Caltrans, the City has not even submitted.a-PSR to Caltrans for its review. Personal Communication, Patrick'Pang, February7, 2012. The PSR is a necessary first step toward Caltrans approval, and is the document that actually describes the nature of the roadway improvement project. While the City had submitted a PSR to Caltrans in the past,that document was effectively'withdrawn when Caltrans indicated that an interchange had been eliminated in favor of new.design plans for an undercrossing or cut-through. Id.; see also Letter from Eric Schen, Caltrans to Vincent Marengo, City of'Petaluina, dated December 30, 2009, included as Attachment D. Thus, the Extension is still at conceptual stages—indeed, the precise components of the.Extension are still influx. In;sum; the FEIR contains no evidence that the Extension project will be constructed and operational by the date used for the FF,IR's cumulative analysis. FEIR at 1I-23. 'Indeed, all available evidence points'in the opposite direction: the Extension is unlikely to be built on any time frame that can be even guessed at today. The FEIR's analysis thus relies on a project that will likely never be built, resulting in analysis that underestimates cumulative traffic conditions at several area intersections. SHUTE, MIHALY WEINRERGERiip x, 121 Petaluma City Council February 17, 2012 Page 4 H. The FEIR's Analysis.Assumes the Rainier Avenue Extension, and Therefore Lacks Substantial Evidence. As we pointed out in our comments on the DEIR, this reliance on the unsupported assumption regarding the Rainier Avenue Extension is a fatal flaw in the analysis, because it undermines the accuracy of the baseline. Whether the traffic impacts of a project have been adequately analyzed in an ER depends'in part on whether the document relies on an appropriate baseline. Here, the FEIR assumes that the,Extension will be in place, reducing congestion. Thus, the document starts with a baseline level of congestion that is lower than it would be without the Extension. As discussed above, this baseline is not supported by any evidence, let alone the substantial evidence that CEQA requires. The FEIR then adds the Project-generated traffic to this baseline. The result of that operation, which determines the significance of the Project's impact, is also artificially low. The FEIR thus understates the Project's cumulative traffic impact. CEQA does not allow this approach. Sunnyvale West Neighborhood Ass'n. v. City of Sunnyvale (2011) 1190 Cal.App.4th 1351. The FEW is therefore inadequate, and will remain so until its traffic analysis is revised to reflect a realistic scenario in which the.Extension is not built. At the very least, the FEIR must be revised and recirculated to analyze traffic impacts if the Extension includes only an undercrossing,without an interchange. This is not a new problem: since at least 1992, the City has assumed that the Extension would be built inalie-near future and would mitigate traffic and air quality impacts'of large-scale.development projects approved along the way. See Petaluma River Council vs. City.ofRetalunta, Sonoma County Superior-Court Case No. 5CV 190492, Statement of Decision filed July 14, 1992, included as Attachment E. Twenty years later, the Extension remains-a'$75 million pipe dream, and the City can no longer assume its construction will,solve the traffic woes of this and other projects that come before it. SHUTE, MIIIALY C`—\VEIN BERGER u' Petaluma City Council February 17, 2012 Page 5 CONCLUSION For all the aforementioned reasons, this Project cannot be approved. We urge the City to rethink this Projeet-and,its'environmental review,and to take no action until a legally adequate EIR is prepared and recirculated for'publicreview and comment. Very truly yours, SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP OPt Gabriel M.B. Ross Attachments: Attachment A - Fehr and Peers, City of Petaluma Traffic Mitigation Fee Program Update 2008 (excerpt) Attachment B— City of Petalu_ma.AgendaReport Concerning Railroad Crossing on Caulfield Lane, December 19, 2011, with excerpts from Attachment 4 (PUC Application of the City of Petaluma for an Order Authorizing,the Permanent Relocation of One At-Grade Crossing of the Tracks of the Sonoma-Marin Are Rail Transit District); Minutes of December 19, 2011 Petaluma City Council meeting Attachment C. City of Petaluma Agenda R eport Concerning Development Fees, December 19, 2011 Attachment b - Letter from Vincent Marengo, City of Petaluma, to EricSchen, Caltrans, dated December 28, 2009 and letter from Eric Schen, Caltrans, to Vincent Marengo, City of Petaluma, dated December 30, 2009 S'HUTIi, MI HA LM L,--WEINBERGERur Petaluma Neighborhood Association 40 fourth Street- Petaluma CA 94952 TO: The City of,Petaluma c/o Heather Hines 11 English Street Petaluma CA 94952 Re: Deer Creek,Village Project State Clearinghouse No. 2004092093 Date: June 18th, 2012 Dear Deputy Planning Manager, The attached documents pertain to traffic mitigation measures regarding the proposed Deer Creek Village shopping center project on North McDowell Blvd. The City Staff and City Council has relied upon redevelopment funding for a crosstown connector at Rainier Avenue. According to the attached documentation, funding from this source is no longer accessible by the City's redevelopment agencies. Therefore, the traffic mitigation for cumulative impacts of the Deer Creek Village project and the East Washington Place project'(totally almost 25,000 automobile trips per day) are no longer feasible. The Petaluma Neighborhood Association and it's cornmunity based members, request that the City staff and council`do everything in it's power to implement the SMART growth policies and programs of.the General Plan, and require the developer (Merlone Geier Partners) to re-design their auto-centric project into a-"true" mixed-use pedestrian oriented project that is better integrated into the surrounding residential neighborhoods. By requiring the implementation of sustainable planning and development methods into the project, you will help to reduce it's traffic impacts and the need for more large scale automobile infrastructure projects in our city. Please submit my commentand it's attached documentation into the administrative record for the Deer Creek Village:project. Thank you for your consideration: Sincerely; Paul Francis DirectcNPetaluma:Neighborhood Association ATTACHMENT 3 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:petalumaplanniag @ ctpetaluma.ca.us DATE: August 14, 2012 AGENDA ITEM NO. 8 TO: Planning Commission PREPARED BY:. Heather Hines, Planning Manager SUBJECT: DEER CREEK VILLAGE Intersection of North McDowell and Rainier Avenue SITE'PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following resolutions: • Resolution approving Site Plan and Architectural Review for Deer Creek Village located at the intersection of North McDowell and Rainier for an approximately 345,000 square foot commercial shopping center on 36.55 acres and including creation of the Deer Creek Swale corridor subject to the attached findings and conditions of approval; and • Resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit to modify required on-site parking in compliance with Implementing Zoning Ordinance Section 11.065 and subject to the attached findings and conditions of approval; and • Resolution.approving,,Site Plan and Architectural Review fora master sign program for Deer Creek Village subject to the attached findings and conditions of approval. PROJECTSUMMARY' . Project: Deer Creek Village .Intersection of North;McDowell and Rainier APN: '007=380-005 and007 380-027 Project File No: 09-SPC-0091 Project Planner: I-leather Hines, Planning Manager Project Applicant: Merlone Geier Management Property Owner: Merlone Geier Management Nearest Cross Streets: North McDowell and Rainier Page I / I 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: MU1B General Plan Land Use: Mixed Use Subsequent Actions after Planning Commission Review: • City Council for right-of-w ay abandonment • Building Permits PROJECT DESCRIPTION BACKGROUND FEIR 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 was distributed by the City on March 5, 2010 and the Draft EIR was released for the required 45-day agency and,public review on March 3, 2011. Public hearings on the Draft EIR were held at the Planning Commission on March 22, 2011 and at-the City Council on April 18, 2011. The Final EIR was presented to the Planning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing on January 10, 2012 and certified by the City Council on April 2, 2012. FEEL 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 bytlie.City Council at a public hearing.on May 4, 2009. Lot Line Acjustnvent A lot line adjustment•was approved by the City of Petaluma on June 9, 2010. The Lot Line Adjustment modified-property lines_to ensure that the proposed building siting would not cross any existing parcel line.,The finaliot lines have not been recorded with the Sonoma County Recorder and will be a condition of approval for any entitlements for the project. Page 2 PBAC The project was referred and reviewed by the Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PBAC) in July 2009, December 2009, January 2010, and May 2010. On June 9, 2010 the PBAC finalized comments and recommended conditions of approval (Attachment 10). PPAC The applicant met with the Petaluma Public Art Committee in May,2011 and June, 2012 to review the draft master art program (Attachment 6) and introduce the committee to the artist selected to oversee the integration of public art into the project. The Committee has expressed support with the artist selection and overall approach outlined in the draft-master art program for the project. City Council When the Council certified the FEIR on April 2, 2012 the applicant verbally agreed to several conditions that have been incorporated into the draft resolution, including requiring a third party peer review of final hydrology calculations, prohibiting a large format bookstore tenant, dedicating necessary right-of-way along Rainier and McDowell for the future Rainier extension and cross- town connector, purchasing ,benches from Petaluma High to incorporate into the project, and constructing and maintaining,a soundwall/fence along the rear property line of homes on the east side.of North McDowell between Rainier Avenue and Professional Drive. In addition, council members provided-feedback for consideration during SPAR review. Although there were varying comments expressed by individual council members, the two items that represented the consensus of the Council were to increase energy efficiency and utilize landscaping along Highway 101 to screen'the back of buildings. The revised plans have addressed:many of the council's individual comments such as four sided architecture and enclosing the outdoor space associated with Friedman's. Additionally, conditions presented for the Commission's consideration include increasing landscaping along the Highway 101 corridor, incorporating electrical charging stations, limiting'drive.thru activities associated with Friedman's yard, incorporating PBAC comments, and eliminating,rear facing signs, all of which were itenis discussed at the Council hearing on the FEIR. 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 in shape and consists of two parcels, a 26:20-acre lot 007-380-027) on the north end, and a 10.35-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 as three 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. Page 3 9 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 AdministrativetOffices 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 approximately 345,000 square feet of commercial land uses consisting of 255,000 square feet of retail, 44,450 square feet of fitness, and 17,500 square feet of services (bank and office Uses); 1,069 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 the Deer Creek swale 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 retail buildings, along with restaurant; pharmacy, and grocery uses for a total of approximately 255,000 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, medical office, 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. Architecture Friedman's is [lie anchor of the Deer Creek project located in the southwestern corner of the project with a floor area of approximately 78,000 square feet plus a20,000 square foot garden center to the east and a 35,000 square foot dry shed to the rear. The Friedman's building (Sheet A-3) faces North McDowell and is set forward on the lot from the facades of the other major tenants at the rear of the site.. The main entry is entirely glass with a gabled roof and a Sonoma county photo mural that is visible from the front entry. The gabled roof line and glazing is echoed in the plant nursery as visible on the north elevation. Two 36 foot tall living walls are prominent features of the front facade and again are repeated in smaller living walls proposed on either side of the main entry to the nursery(Attachnient;9). In addition to these key architectural features on the north elevation, the building is primarily stucco with a metal canopy along much of the font. The front facade is articulated with different wall faces, glazing, and the use of color. Page 4 �^ 1 // � ui A 16 foot tall enclosure runs the perimeter of the Friedman's yard and integrates columns, metal wall screens and masonry panels. The roof of the dry shed, nursery buildings, and the main store behind are visible above the roof. No outside storage or racking is visible above the enclosure. The other three major tenants are attached and also located at the rear of the site, close to the Highway 101. Each of the tenants has an articulated entry with differing roof features, canopies, glazing, and other pedestrian scaled elements. The overall:height of the building is 30 feet with roof features extending up to 35 feet. The'primary exterior material is stucco with aluminum storefronts and architectural detailing such steel trellis, metal cornice, and canvas awnings. The rear facade of the-major tenants is visible from the freeway and has incorporated varying roof details, steel trellis, and,split face CMU screening of loading areas. The rest of the center is oriented around the project's main street that runs east west, generally parallel to North McDowell. Buildings situated+along+this internal street are smaller in scale than the major tenant buildings and many are internally divided into multiple shop spaces. All of these buildings have glazing on multiple frontages and use different architectural features to provide interest,and the pedestrian level. Although no building exactly replicates'another, all buildings take from a similar palette of color and materials. Many of these small buildings open onto the project's public plazas and gathering areas, including the Deer Creek Swale. Signs The applicant is requesting:approval of a master=sign.program (Attachment 7) as part of the Site Plan and Architectural Review of the larger project. The master sign program outlines standards and specifications for all-tenants-of the Deer Creek Village Center, including specifications for materials, size, types, and locations of building and freestanding signs. Four freestanding signs are proposed for the project, including one 27'-6"tall double faced internally illuminated pylon:sign (P1)and three 10'-0"tall double faced'internally illuminated monument signs (Ml-M3). Alhfour signs are coordinated in design with a stone veneer base and gabled cap. The larger pylon sign includes spaces for seven tenant signs on each side and an approximate width of 24 inches. The smaller monument signs include spaces for three tenants and have a width of approximately 16 inches. The main pylon sign and two of the monument signs are proposed along North McDowell and the third monument sign is proposed along Rainier at the project entrance. The sign program includes a breakdown of allowable sign square footage per business as outlined in Cfiapter'l9 of the lmplementing,ZoningOrdinance. Sign allowances for each business range from 31 square feet for one of the medical office tenants to 1,028 square feet for the:home improvement store. The sizes outlined are maximums. The sign program includes acceptable,sign.styles, size parameters, type style, logos, lighting, and colors inaddition to outlining an approval process;that requires initial approval by the landlord followed by the.City's review:and approval of a sign permit for conformance with the master sign program. Page 5 92 W 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 willbe anew 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 the proposed shops and offices. A total of 1,069 parking spaces are proposed. A total of 150 bicycle parking spaces are proposed and 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. The Friedman's yard is designed for customer entrance and exit to the north of the main building in a designated security gate. Contractor parking and a separate contractor entry are designated at the rear of the building with access from within the yard. Deliveries a 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. 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 contains 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 fora proposed restaurant. Accent trees, including Crape Myrtle, Chinese Pistache, Flowering Cherry and Caller)/ Pear, would be used to highlight the major site entrances, interior plazas and store entrances. Parking islands landscaped with evergreen orbroad 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. There are 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 thesmallest tree and are approximately 30 feet tall. Although Abe trees would have to be removed in the future for the Rainier interchange, they are not proposed to be removed for the proposed projector 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. Page 6 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 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•trafficsignals 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 occurover'a three to four month period with•the remaining Stage 1 activities and each additional stage occurring over three',to four months as well,with the exception of approximately 12 months for building construction. The project would be anticipated to be operational 18 to 24 months after-Site Plan and Architectural Review approval. STAFF ANALYSIS PROJECT ENTITLEMENTS Project entitlements before the'Commission for consideration are Site Plan and Architectural Review for the project and the proposed master;sign program and a`Conditional Use Permit for a reduction in required on-site parking,_SPAR is evaluated under the standards set out in Section 24. 010 of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance and'as outlined below in this report. 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, wit/i parking provided to thelextent possible, in larger common areas or garages. Maximum FAR including both residential and non-residential uses is 2.5, and inaxini vn.residential density is 30 DU/AC. 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. Page 7 I The proposed project includes a mix of uses andincorporates 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 war-anew include development of a cul-de-sac to facilitate safe access to transit buses leaving the City transit center and turning onto North.McDowell 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 on both sides of the Class I path to provide buffer and transition. Additionally, native landscaping, pathways, and public art are proposed along the Deer Creek smile 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 of facades toward the street, landscape buffer,frontiparking areas, construction of a 10 foot wide Class I pathway along the North McDowell frontage and installation of street trees and other landscaping. The master sign program provides'for unified signage elements along.North McDowell which will further strengthen the visual and aesthetic character of this major corridor. As conditioned, the reduced height of the main pylori sign for the shopping center Will maintain a streetscape scale along North McDowell. Full analysis of the master sign.program is set out in a later section of this report. 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 itself provides a transition'between the larger major tenant buildings along theTlighway 101 frontage and the smaller individual single story buildings closer to Nortlt McDowell: The project is also well suited in intensity to the future interchange and cross town connector and has been designted°torespect 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 corrections 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 standard's. The project's pedestrian connectivity through the site improves the network betweem commercial, office, residential and medical uses in this area of the McDowell corridor. Page 8 � Q� 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 incorpor,aterltinto.the.Deer Creek Village project include retail,financial service, fitness/health facility; building and landscape Materials' sales, minor medical services, groceries, professional office, and general retail. This range of uses is consistent with permitted uses in'°the MUIB zoning district, complies with General Plan Policy.2-P-87 specific to this site, and.complies with the range of uses as sought in the Mile(' 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 along theriver and creek corridors. The Deer Creek Village project includes enhancement and preservation of the Deer Creek swale through 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 Requite.a'percentage of parking-spaces in large parking lots or-garages to provide electrical vehicle charging facilities. The FE1R for the Deer Creek Village project includes,mitigation measure AQ-4 which requires that a percentage of parking spaces provide electrical vehicle charging facilities. Consistent with the standards applied to the East Washington Place project, staff consulted the 2010 California Green Building Standards' Code (Table 45.106.5.3.1)for general`standards for the number of electrical vehicle charging facilities appropriate for the Deer°Creek Village:project. Standards outlined in the above mentioned table correlate to the total number of parking'spaces incorporated into the project, with find charging stations required jor projects with 201 or more parking spaces. Given the scope of the Deer Creek Village project and the 1,069 parking spaces proposed, Staff recommends that a total of 10 parking spaces (approximately 1%) be incorporated into the project and has conditioned the project;accordingly (Condition 3f) 4-P-I 6 To reduce combustiomemissions during;constfuction 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-P-16 have been incorporated into Mitigation Measure AQ-1 for grading/construction `impacts in the Deer Creek Village FEIR. Additionally, this mitigation measure:includes.compliancewith relevant Bay.Area Air Quality Management.District constructions standards. 5-P-1 t 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. Additionally, the applicant has voluntarily agreed to dedicate right-of way along Page 9 12 . 1 North McDowell and Rainier Avenue needed,for ihe,fuiure build-out of Rainier Avenue and the Rainier Cross-town Connector. 5-P-I6 If Class II 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 edge 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'McDoivell frontaSe. 5-P-23 Requite the provision of pedestrian siteaccess 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-3I 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,inore desirable. 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 incorporated public art into the planning and design process for the Deer Creek Village,project, The applicant has integrated initial consultation from the May 2011 meeting with One Petaluma Public A'rt Committee (PPAC) into their draft Master Art Program for the project and presented the updated program to the PPAC ontJune 28, 2012. The applicant will continue to work with the''PPAGto_fitnlizeadhe.Master Art Program for the integration of public art 113-,an integral, part of the Deer Creek Village development. 6-P-30 Place public art.in areas that are interactive and accessible to the public and at the City's gateways. Public art cohsis"tent witli the requirements of Chapter 18 of the IZO will be incorporated throughout=,the:site, with)larger pieces incorporated into public plazas and gatheringspaces and an art walk'aldnig 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. Page 10 As discussed in detail in FEIR Topical Response I'I.. Emergency Access Impacts, the addition of project-generated trips is not expected to cause a I-eductioii in travel speeds sufficient to cause significant delays in emergency vehicles. Additionally, Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-12 requires that emergency vehicle pre-emption be provided at the:proposed traffic signal at the intersection 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 traffic signals on North McDowell Boulevard That work is anticipated.to be'completed by the end of2012. 8-P-36 Require development-6n sites greater-than '/.acre in.size to demonstrate no new increase in peak day stormwater 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 and the project has been conditioned appropriately. 8-P-38 All development-activities shall be constructed and maintained in•accordance with Phase 2 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit requirements. The project will be conditioned to require that all storm 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 commercial. 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 coinniunily. As discussed in the City's retail leakage study, the Deer,Creek Village FEIA, and the Urban Decay Analysis included in the DEIRsall identify a significant leakage due to the absence of a home improvement store in Petaluma. This addition to Petaluma's economic base will generate revenue for the city to sustain and expand city services. Sewer Easement There is an existing public sewer easement located underneath a portion of the proposed'Friedman's store (C-2). In order for the "store to be constructed, it will be necessary to relocate the existing public .sewer, main and easement. The areal of proposed sewer easement. to be vacated is approximately 10-feet wide'by'735-feet wide (7,350.Square Feet). The existing sewer easement was' dedicated to the?City in 1983 (DN. 1983=04690) by Richard and Faith Gray to allow for sewer collection of the adjacent.Lynch Creek Way office complex. The existing sewer easement to be vacated is not used for public,street or access purposes other than what's required to operate and maintain the sewer line. Pursuant toytheStreets and Highways Code Section 8324, the City Council_is the decision making body for vacation of the sewer easement. However, before that Council action, the City chooses to request that the Planning Coiiltnission determine whether the vacation is;consistent-with-the City's General Plan; pursuant to California Government, Code Section 65402, and forward its determination to the City Council as a recommendation. Page 11 1 General Plan Policy 8-G-4 states that the City shall manage its wastewater collection and treatment system to address 100 percent capture and treatment of the City's wastewater in an economically and ecologically sound manner. The segment of existing sewer main proposed to be removed is part of the City's collection system and will be replaced by the developer to the latest City and industry standards. The costs of the replacement shall be borne by the Deer Creek project developer. There is an existing City owned and operated storm drain located within a small portion of the proposed vacation area. Staff has confirmed that no other-public utility easements exist in the sewer easement. Upon vacation of the existing sewer easement-a new, 10-foot wide public sewer easement will be granted to the City. Vacation of the existing sewer easement and relocation and granting of a new sewer easement must be completed prior to issuance of a building permit for the Deer Creek project. Staff has included a condition of approval (Conditions 13, 57) to this effect as well as a finding of General Plan consistency for the vacation in the draft resolution (Attachment l) There is a paper easement on an old parcel map (Parcel Map 170) for an irrevocable offer of dedication for public street and utilities. The dedication has never been accepted by the City and has not been used. However, the paper easement requires summary vacation at the discretion of the City Council. Staff reconintends'approval of the summary vacation in association with the Deer Creek Village and an applicable condition has been included in the draft resolution(Condition 74). IMPLEMENTING ZONING ORDINANCE Land Uses The project site is within, the MU 1 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, groceties/specialty foods, and office) are permitted uses within MUI B. The layout of the Major I space has changed most significantly since the Commission's previous review of the plans during, initial SPAR and FEIR review. At this point, Friedman's Home Improvement is the single secured tenant for the center and the tenant space has been designed specifically for Friedman's. "Building and landscape materials sales—indoor" is a permitted use in the IZO and is categorized under General Retail. This land use is differentiated from "building and landscape materials sales — Outdoor" which is categorized under outdoor storage yard. Correspondingly, the indoor use is amore commercial use and the outdoor is classified as a more industrial use due to the outdoor storage and resulting-impacts. . htiorder to remain consistent with the definition and intent of the "building and landscape'materials sales .indoor" land use the Friedman's space has been designed to enclose the yard area through incorporation of'a dry"shed,and;integrated.perinieterrstructure;to enclose all activities at the rear of the site and screen all materials, deliveries, pick up area, and the open walled dry shed. No equipment or aCtivity Within this area will be visible and specific conditions to this have been included in the draft resolution for the Commission's consideration (Condition 19). The total sales square footage of the Friedman's tenant space, including the dry shed,garden center, ground sales/storage-area remains less than the overall Lowers square footage included in the FEIR analysis for the project. Staff believes that the proposed,design successfully encloses the "back of store"activities integral to Friedman operations and maintains the design and intent of the "building and landscape materials sales— indoor" use category. Page 12 n de 17 Parking Table 11.1 in the,Implementing Zoning Ordinance outlines minimum on-site parking requirements for specific use types. Specific uses included in the proposed Deer Creek-Village project, such as pharmacy; building and landscape materials sales, and fitness/health facility are individually identified in Table 11.1 as separate uses for the purposes of determining parking requirements. For the purposes of analysis, staff has grouped 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. Under IZO Section 11.065.C, a reduction of up to 25% of the required parking.may be granted through a Conditional Use Permit when a common parking facility serves multiple-uses, and it is demonstrated that the typical use would be staggered to such an extent that the reduced number of spaces would be adequate to serve all uses sharing the facility. As outlined in the following summary table, approximately 1,109 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. Use IZOirRe`gtiir"ement "Square,Footage ;Required General Retail 1,space/300 sq ft Shops: 31;300 sq ft 104 spaces _ Major Tenants::202;000 sq ft 673 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.s4 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 341,552 sq ft >1,109 spaces As proposed, the Deer Creek Village project includes 1,069 parking spaces; which±is approximately 40 spaces less than the mininium 'requirements. The applicant has requested approval of a Conditional Use Permit to reduce the required parking by approximately 10%. Staff supports the approval of a. Conditional Use Permit to reduce onsite parking because many customers will frequent multiple businesses in a single trip to•the shopping center, thereby reducing the need for parking. Additionally, the shopping center is served by transit, includes preferred parking for carpool/vanpool, and connects with the existing bike and pedestrian network to provide access by all methods of transportation. Staff believes that the proposed parking is still adequate to serve all uses sharing the, Deer Creek Village parking; facilities. Additionally, the parking reduction is consistent with General Plan (Policy 5-P-13) which encourages reduced parking for mixed use development and with:Mitigation Measure AQ-4 which required reducing parking hardscape while still meeting City Code requirements for parking. Page 13 /Iii 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 Fs emphasized along the project's "main street" and the four "spines" running east-west through the parking,lot connecting to major tenants at the rear of the site. Walkways are also found along either side of the deer creek buffer zone and running north/south to connect with Lynch Creek Drive at the back of the project. Both the creek buffer path and the path at the rear of the site connect to the dog park and associated pathways in the future Rainier interchange location. Offsite improvements to the larger pedestrian and bicycle circulation network include a 10-foot Class I path along North McDowell and frontage improvements along Rainier Avenue to the project entrance. Requirements for bicycle parking andshower 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 automobile parking spaces. Plans indicates that shower facilities will be incorporated into the project (A-h); 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 and that employee showers be located with interior access to the building and including bathroom facilities(Condition 3e). r � Y �11setT,ype ��t"' �a G SquareFotifage, °��'��t ;ShowerslRequiredkli'�Ci Grocery Retail 8,100 sq ft 0 Fitness Recreation 44,450 sq ft 0 (included) Shops 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 Shops A Retail 5,500 sq ft 0 Shops B Retail 5,500 sq ft 0 Pharmacy Retail 14,820 sq ft 1 Shops 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 130,000 sq ft 4 Total 11 showers required Recommended conditions of ,approval from the Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (Attachment. l o) have been incorporated into the draft resolution. 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 Page l4 /*\* y .. imposition of measures on new development, to reduce vehicle trips under CEQA to mitigate impacts. These mitigation measures relate to transit/carpool/alternative •fuel 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 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 Merlone Geier has indicated their desire to incorporate public art into the Deer Creek Village project to comply with the requirement of Chapter 18 of the IZO. The applicant has met with the Petaluma Public Art Committee to discuss the public art component of the project on June 22, 2011 and June 28, 2012. At the later hearing the applicant presented the updated Master Art Program (Attachment 6) and introduced the-committee to.the artist that will be the primary consultant. The Master Art Program incorporates several ideas in different areas of the project, including a rotating art walk along the Deer Creek buffer, functional art in the form of benches and water fountains throughout the development; and larger art pieces incorporated into public plazas along the projects main street. The applicant will continue to work alongside the Art. Committee in finalizing the project's master art program and meeting all conditions for public art as required by Chapter 18 of the IZO (Condition 21). Height Maximum building heights for the MUIB zoning district are 30 feet (Table 4.10) with a footnote 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 30feetto a.maximum 45 feet. All buildings alongthe North:McDowell Boulevard frontage are within the standard 30 foot height 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 the7101 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. Signs With the exception of freestanding signs, the master sign program submitted by the applicant appears to generally meet all sign requirements for shopping centers outlined in Chapter 19 of the Page 15 / V✓J • IZO. Page 7 of the,sign program outlines maxiniuri allowable-sign area per tenant and including the freestanding signs and "clearly follows the procedure`s:provided in Section 20.050(B)(5) of the IZO for shopping centers. Section 20.050(A)(3) specifies that, "one;.fireestanding sign:not exceeding,thirty feet in height and two hundred square feet in area on the site of a shopping center, with a maximum height of ten feet from the bottom to top of the sign face, provided that all buildings are set back not less than thirty feet from the curb or street pavement edge on which the shopping center fronts. Shopping centers fronting on two or more public streets° shall be allowed done additional freestanding sign for each additional frontage. Such signs shall not exceed twenty-five square feet in area nor a height of fifteen feet. " The project sites fronts on both McDowell and Rainier and therefore two freestanding signs would be allowed for the center., The sign program requests four freestanding signs. Based on the layout of the centerand the amount of frontage along North McDowell staff believes that two freestanding signs on McDowell and one freestanding sign on Rainier would be more appropriate to clearly identify the primary access points to the center,. Because a total of three freestanding signs exceeds that allowed by Section 220.050(A)(3), Staff recommends that.the height of the signs be reduced to a maximum 20 feet in height for the main pylon sign and 10 feet in height for the two additional monument signs. Reducing the height of-the main pylon sign also reduces potential views of the sign from the neighboring residential neighborhood backing onto the east side of North McDowell. Staff's recommendation has been carried forward in the draft resolution (Attachment 3). Site Plan+an_d Architectural Review As outlined in the findings below, staff believes that the Deer Creek Village project meets SPAR Guidelines in that it effectively sites the larger tenants at the rear or Highway portion of the site and gathers the smaller more pedestrian scaled buildings closer- to McDowell and along the interior main street. A variety of colors, materials, and architectural detailing are used throughout the project to differentiate and articulate the buildings. The plazas interspersed with the buildings provide enjoyable public gathering space and the Deer Creek Swale creates a unique asset to the project. To-further the benefits of the project there area few modifications to architecture and site design that.staff recommends prior to issuance of a building permit: • 'Modify the south elevation of the Bank building to provide more interaction along the interior Main:Street(A-14); •. Revise. the north elevation of the Grocery Store to increase interaction and pedestrian orientation:along+North;McDowell (A-8); • Revise landscape plan to add appropriate landscaping of the corner City parcel at the intersection or North McDowell and Rainier and along, the future Rainier frontage and provide.continuity with the project(LP-01); •r Reviselandscape'plan.tO increase.tree planting along Highway 101 corridor to further screen the buildings (LP-01) • Redesign conflicting"parking spaces at corners of interior parking lot to ensure unrestricted access (A-1); and Page 16 sva • Eliminate freeway oriented signage on the rear facades of the major tenants (A-3A and A-5). These items have been added as conditions of approval to the draft.resolution (Conditions 3) 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 analysis is shown in italics. The project includes the appropriate use of quality materials and harmony and proportion of the overall design. The proposed project uses a variety of exterior materials, including stone, wood, metal, glass, plaster, tile, split face concrete block, and `living walls" 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 development orients both towards frontages such as North McDowell-and interior within the development and between individual buildings. The architectural style is appropriate for the project and compatible with the overall character of the neighborhood. • The architectural style of the proposed project provides transition between existing industrial development to the north, office/medical uses to the south, and residential development to the east. Additionally, the transition of the architecturalstyle and massing front 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 architectural 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'Raniier. Additionally, structures have been.sitedso 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 &hopp'ing center. The size, location, design, color, number, lighting, and materials of all signs and outdoor structures are appropriate,for the project's surroundings. The proposed sign program provides a cohesive'dad:integrated approach to signage for the Deer Creek Village center as a whole. A variety of,materials and Colors are encouraged but the parameters of the;pm ogram ensure consistency. The master sign.program outlines maxim urn square footage for each of the 36 tenants, consistent with the parameters of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance. The freestanding signs are designed with colors, materials, and decorative features Page 17 11 41 'build.in the architecture of the site. All signs are internally illuminated and have been conditioned to include automatic sensors to shut-off during•day tithe:hours and dim during non-business, late night, and early morning hours. Landscaping shall be in keeping with the character or design of the site: 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 landscaping is focused within the 100 foot wide Deer Creek buffer zone and enhances:the experience dlong-the pedestrian pathways along the edges of this linear open space. Esisting trees along the Highway 101 corridor will not be removed as part of this project. The overaltlandscaping concept orients and'connects the large development, and enhances the architectural design and siting. Ingress, egress, internal circulation for bicycles and automobiles, off-street automobiles and parking•facilities and pedestrian ways .shall be designed to promote safety and convenience and shall conform to City Standards. Plans pertaining to pedestrian, bicycle, or automobile circulation shall be routed to the PBAC for review and recommendation. The project has been designed to provide safe and convenien&access to all modes of transportation, including bicycles, pedestrians, 'transit riders, and automobiles. 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 eastside 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 iniproves 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 a memo (Attachment 10,) commending the • applicant for working with the committee and recommending approval of the project with conditions of approval, which have been included in conditions of approval (Conditions 81-97). PUBLIC COMMENTS On August 2, 2012 a public notice for the Planning Commission's consideration of the proposed Site Plairand Architectural Review and Conditional Use Perniif'waspublished.in,the Argils Courier and mailed to all property owners and occupants within 1,000 feet of the subject'proPerty and on the interested parties list for the project. Two public comments hale been received and are attached for the Commission's consideration (Attachments 1 1,:,12). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the Deer Creek Village Project, which assessed the environmental impacts of the project, and was certified by the Petaluma City Council on April 2„2012, includingthe Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program(Attachment 4). The Page IS ^ — I project layout and design being reviewed by the Planning Commission for SPAR and CUP entitlements are in substantial conformance with scope of the project analyzed in the FEIR and therefore no,further environmental review is required for the project. The adopted mitigations are'now in effect and cannot be altered without further environmental review and analysis, which would be warranted only in the event of significant changes to the project. The scope ofthe:Site'P,lan and Architectural Review process should not result in significant changes to the site layout or design that inrtum conflict with any analysis or mitigations of the FEIR or MMRP. Many of the Mitigation Measures have been incorporated into the design of the project, such as providing pedestrian linkages, connections to local transit, bike lanes, bike parking, and showers for employees (AQ-4) and improving pedestrian and bike facilities along North .McDowell frontage (TRAFFIC-1 lb). Other mitigations,such as providing preferential parking near the office building entrance (AQ-4) and requiring a. percentage of parking spaces for electrical vehicle charging facilities (AQ-4) have been specifically addressed in detailed'conditions of approval (Conditions 3f, 3g). The entire MMRP and all mitigations have been.adoptedbe reference (Condition 5). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following resolutions: • Resolution approving::Site.Plan and Architectural Review for Deer Creek Village located at the intersection of North McDowell and Rainier for an approximately 345,000 square foot commercial shopping center on 36.55 acres and including creation of the Deer Creek Swale corridor subject to the attached findings and conditions of approval; and • Resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit, to modify required on-site parking in compliance with hnplementing Zoning Ordinance Section.11.065 and subject to the attached findings and conditions of approval; and • Resolution approving Site Plan and Architectural Review for a.master sign program for Deer Creek Village subject to the attached findings and conditions of approval. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution for SPAR 2. Resolution for CUP 3. Resolution for SPAR—Sign Program 4. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 5. Reduced Plan Set 6; Master Art Program 7. N'lasterSigwProgram 8. Fiiedman's rendering 9. Living Wall Details. 10. PBAC Memo 11_ Public Comment letter,.Paul Francis 12. Public Comrtienfletter,:Butch Smith 13. Full sized Plan Set Page 19 12 1 I ATTACHMENT 4 RESOLUTION NO. 2012-11 CITY OF PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A,CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO MODIFY PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEER CREEK VILLAGE PROJECT LOCATED AT NORTH MCDOWELL BOULEVARD AND RAINIER AVENUE APNs 007-380-005 and 007-380-027 File No. 09-SPC-0091 WHEREAS, Merlone Geier'has.requesied'a Conditional Use Permit to modify parking requirements as.part of the Deer Creek Village Project at the intersection of North McDowell Boulevard and Rainier Avenue; and, WHEREAS, Section 11.065.0 outlines reduction of up to 25% of required parking spaces for shared off street parking focilities•through the issuance of o Conditional Use Permit; and, WHEREAS, the proposed Conditional Use Permit has been processed in compliance with Section 24.030 of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance and referred to the Planning Commission for consideration as part of the project's larger Site Plan and Architectural Review as authorized by subsection 24.030.Q'of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance; and, WHEREAS, the City Council certified a Final Environmental Impact Report and made findings of Overriding Considerations for the Deer Creek Village project; and, WHEREAS,The issuance of the Conditional Use Permit is consistent with Mitigation Measure AQ-4, which requires a reduction in parking hardscape while still meeting parking requirements as outlined in the Implementing Zoning Ordinance; and, WHEREAS, on August 2, 20.12, a Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Argus Courier and mailed to all residents and properly owners.within 1,000 feet of the project and all • individuals who requested notification; and, WHEREAS, the project as conditioned,will not constitute.a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of ihe.cornmunity because it will be operated:in conformance with performance standards specified in the Uniform Building Code, the Petaluma Implementing Zoning Ordinance, and is consistent with the City of Petaluma General Plan 2025;and, WHEREAS,;the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on August 14, 2012, in accordance with the City of Petaluma Implementing Zoning Ordinance, Section 24.030. NOW,THEREFORE;BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby approves the Conditional'Use Permit for modification to required parking for the Deer Creek Village Project, based on the lindings made below and subject to conditions of approval attached as Exhibit A hereto and incorporated herein by reference: I. The request to reduce on-site parking requirements by approximately 10%for Deer Creek Village is;consistent with the allowable reductiori'allowed in IZO Section 11,065.C. 4> 1 Hindi ';7a t ' d' Plpnning cpiij llssian esolulion No.2012-11 Page 1 2 Theshopping;center layout encourages-a single customer to make multiple stops within the center therefore reducing the necessary parking requirement for each individual use in the center. 3. The shopping center is served by transit, includes preferred parking for corpool/vanpool, and connects with the existing bike and pedestrian network to provide access by all methods of transportation. 4. Based on the above two findings the parking reduction will not create insufficient parking for the uses within the Deer Creek Village center. 5. The parking reduction is consistent with General Plan policy 5-P-13 for major employers to reduce parking requirements for mixed use development and developments providing shared parking. 6. The parking reduction is consistent with Deer Creek Village Mitigation Measures AQ-4 which required reduction in parking hardscape while maintaining consistency with parking requirements as outlined in the 120. ADOPTED this 14th day of August, 2012, by the following vote: :4_14 P Ae )! _ - a ; Commissioner- y ` .' No,, Absent_ Abstcln Abercrombie X Elias X Herries X Johnson X Kearney X Chair Pierre X Vice Chair Wolpert X \Jeenif,,Terre, Ct ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: . ti oitherHines, Comm':Sion Secretory Eric Danly, City A orney, r,,;l •fr '.,'7 r .? r. ., e r1 H`-; P.Ionning'CornmIssion Resolution No.2012-11 Page 2 Exhibit A CUP CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DEER CREEK VILLAGE INTERSECTION OF NORTH.MCDOWELL AND RAINIER APNs: 007-380-005 and 007-380-027 File NO. 09-SPC-0091 I. This Conditional Use Permit authorizes a reduction in required off-street parking spaces by 10%and up to 25%of the required parking os outlined for individual uses in Section 11 of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance. 2. Plans submitted for building permit review shall be in substantial conformance with the Conditional Use Permit request and plans date stamped July 25, 2012. 3. The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its officials, boards, commissions, agents, officers and employees )"Inderimnitees") from any claim, action or proceeding against Indemnitees to attack, set aside, void or annul any of the approvals of the project. The applicant's duty to defend, indemnify and hold harmless in accordance with this condition shall apply to any and all claims, actions or proceedings brought concerning the project, not,just such claims,actions or proceedings brought within the time period provided for inapplicable State and/or local statutes.The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding concerning the project. The City shall cooperate fully in the defense. Nothing contained in this condition shall prohibit the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action, or proceeding, and if the City Chooses to do so, applicant shall reimburse City for attorneys' tees and costs incurred by the City. 4. Further reduction of on-site parking, up to 25%of the required parking,is encouraged. COPY - O rgina. i Stored at The 'Plannin comrt?ission•ResoIulion No.2012-11 Page 3 ATTACHMENT 5 RESOLUTION NO. 2012-12 CITY OF PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING SITE PLAN,AND ARCHITECTURAL.REVIEW FOR.A MASTER SIGN PROGRAM,FOR DEER CREEK'VILLAGE LOCATED AT NORTH MCDOWELL BOULEVARD,AND RAINIER AVENUE APNs: 007-380-005 and 007-380-027 File No. 09-SPC-0091 WHEREAS,.Merlone Geier,submitted an application for Site Plan and Architectural Review for Deer Creek Village and On associated Master Sign Program for the center located at the intersection of North-McDowell and Rainier Avenue; and, WHEREAS, an Environmental,Impact Report (AR)was prepared tor the Deer Creek Village Center, which assessed the environmental impacts of the project, including project signage, and was certified by the Petaluma City Council in April_2; 2012 (Resolution No 2012-040 N.C.S.). The Master Sign Program is consistent with the standards contained in Chapter 20> of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance, and the signage type, location, and general dimensions as analyzed in the EIR: Therefore, no further environmental review is required for the master sign program; and, WHEREAS, the Master Sign.Program as conditioned will conform to the intent, goals, and policies of the Petaluma 2025 General Plan: and, WHEREAS, on August 2;2012, a Notice of Public Hearing for SPAR review of the project, including the Master Sign Program, was published in the Argus Courier and mailed to all residents and,properly owners within 1,000 feet of the project and all individuals on the interested party list torthe project; and, • WHEREAS, the Master Sign Program as conditioned, will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental'to the public welfare of the community because it will be operated in conformance with performance standards specified in the Uniform Building Code the Petaluma Implementing Zoning Ordinance. and is consistent with the City of Petaluma General Plan 2025; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on August 14, 2012, in accordance with the'City of Petaluma Implementing Zoning Ordinance, Section 24.030; and, WHEREAS, as conditioned, the Master Sign Program conforms to the requirements of the Site Rion & 'Architectural Review Standards for Review of Applications, Section 24.010 of the Implementing.Zoning Ordinance; and, WHEREAS, as. conditioned. the Master Sign Program meets the purpose and intent of Chapter.20 ot,thelmplementing Zoning Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby approves the Master Sign Program for the project and authorizes construction and installation of signs for the Deer Creak Village Center in compliance with the approved Master Sign Program based on the following findings.and attached conditions. �, ,_� , � >i `� � , ,�", �" (Nldrymng'Gomrrpg5ian'fte;olurion No.2012-12 Page 1 1. The. Master Sign Program, as conditioned, will not constitute a nuisance Or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community in that it will be operated in conformance with the, standards specified in the Uniform Building Code, the Petaluma Implementing Zoning Ordinance and is consistent with the City of Petaluma General Plan. 2. The Master Sign Program is consistent with Policy 2-P-5. of the General Plan 2025 in that the master sign program provides for unified signoge elements along North McDowell which will further strengthen the visual and aesthetic character of this major corridor. As conditioned, the reduced height of ihe main pylon sign for the shopping center will maintain an appropriate sireetscape scale along North McDowell. 3. The Master Sign Program as conditioned is consistent with Section Chapter 24.010 - Site Plan and Architectural Review, of the IZO, including the standards in Section 24.010,G, which governYhe scope of Commission review. a. The appropriate use of quality materials and harmony and proportion of the overall design. The proposed Master Sign Program, as conditioned, will incorporate materials including stucco; stone veneer and metal accents that are in harmony and compatible to the surrounding buildingstand to the style and architecture of the center. The location of each of the proposed signs as conditioned is appropriate to the buildings for the shopping center. The proposed signs, as conditioned, are in keeping with surrounding buildings with regards to setbacks, height, and materials. b. The siting of the structure on the property as compared to the siting of other structures in the immediate neighborhood. The wall signs are proposed below roof lines and placed with sensitivity to the architectural detailing of the buildings. The scale of the wall signs is required to be proportional to the individual tenant storefronts. Siting of the proposed freestanding signs is associated with the primary access points to the shopping centerond will not interfere with vision site triangles at intersections. c. The bulk, height, and color of the proposed structures as compared to the bulk, height, and color of other structures in the immediate neighborhood. The proposed signoge will incorporate materials that are in harmony and compatible to the surrounding buildings: The proposed signs are in keeping with the architecture of the surrounding buildings and encourage variety in color, materials, and design within the Deer Creek Village shopping center. As conditioned, the reduced height of the freestanding signs will be more sensitive to the 'residential uses on the other side of North McDowell and conditions requiring automatic shut offs and dimmers will reduce impacts from light and glare. c r)1-)1 n A .� t, lanning Comrllsso0 Resoiution No.2012-12 Page 2 • ADOPTEDIthis 14th day of August, 2012, by the following vote: ?Co,jjmlssloner Aye :Now.: 7Atteit •cJ■bstRiniz Abercrombie X Elias Herties X Johnson X Kearney X Chair.Pierre X Vice Chair Wolpert X eriierrer,g1/4.:72;\ ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: 114 /if/0 Heat er Hines, Corr) ission Secretary Eric Danly, City Attorney /72 Planning Commission No 2012-)2 Page 3 Exhibit A MASTER SIGN PROGRAM CONDITIONS`OF'APPROVAL DEER CREEK VILLAGE INTERSECTION OF NORTH MCDOWELL AND RAINER APNs: 007-380-005 and"007-3B0-027 File No. 09-SPC-0091 1. This Site Plan & Architectural Review authorizes the approval of a Master Sign Program for Deer Creek Village as shown in the approved sign program and as modified by these • Conditions of Approval.. 2. Plans submitted for sign/building permit review shall be in substantial conformance with the sign program dated stamped July 25, 2012 with the following modifications: a. Two monument signs on North McDowell Boulevard in addition to the main pylon sign shall be allowed. Each monument sign shall not exceed ten feet in height. b. The main freestanding pylon sign (P-1) shall be reduced in height to a maximum height of 20 feet. c. All freestanding signs shall utilize push thru letters and have non-illuminated sign faces except for the business name and logo. d. No monument sign shall be permitted along the Rainier frontage until Rainier Avenue is extended past the-Fitness.Center. At such time a freestanding monument sign shall be permitted at the project's Rainier entrance and shall be designed to match the other monument signs with a maximum height not to exceed ten feet. 3. No business identification signs shall be permitted on the back/rear of the buildings facing the freeway. 4. The applicant shall apply for and obtain a sign permit prior to installation of each sign. 5. All exterior signs shall be e quipped with photo-sensors to shut off illumination during the day and auto-dimmed during'non-business, late night, early morning hours. 6. Business owners shall be adJised in writing to not authorize construction of signs prior to receiving both Property Owner and City approval. Signs fabricated prior-to approval will not be approved for installation if not consistent with the approved master sign program. 7. All work within the public,right-of-way requires an encroachment permit from. the Public Works department. 8. The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its officials, boards, commissions, agents, officers and employees ("Indemnitees.) from any claim, action or proceeding against Indemnitees to attack, set aside, void or annul any of the,approvals of the project. The applicant's duty to defend, indemnify and hold harmless in accordance with this condition shall .apply to any and all claims, actions or proceedings brought concerning the project not just such claims, actions or proceedings brought within the time period provided for in applicable"State and/or local statutes. The City shall promptly notify the subdivider of any such claim, action or proceeding concerning'the subdivision. The City shall cooperate fully in the defense. Nothing contained in this condition shall prohibit - -Y �( ,, _. �%_� r$' `Ylof lningtCorgrfdss,on•Resolution No 2012-12 Page • the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action, or proceeding, and if the City chooses to do so, applicant shall reimburse City for attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the City. ~^~~ k7 i7:1; NC; ;;p1grIping / ATTACHMENT 6 RESOLUTION NO. 2012-13 CITY OF PETALUMA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FOR THE DEER CREEK VILLAGE PROJECT LOCATED AT NORTH MCDOWELL BOULEVARD AND RAINIER AVENUE APNS: 007-380-005 and 007-380-027 File No. 09-SPC-0091 WHEREAS, Merlone Geier submitted an application for Site Plan and Architectural Review for the purposes of developing a 36.55 acre property with approximately 345,000 square feet of commercial uses including retail, financial, restaurants, fitness center, and office for a development to be called Deer Creek Village, "the Project"; and, WHEREAS, at a duly noticed hearing on April 2. 2012, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2012-040, certifying an Environmentdl Impact Report for the project, in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"); and, WHEREAS, at said hearing, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2012-041 N.C.S., making CEQA findings, adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA: and. WHEREAS, at said hearing, the City Council provided direction to the Planning Commission on items to be addressed as part of the Site Plan and Architectural Review process; and, WHEREAS, on August2, 2012. a Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Argus- Courier and mailed to all residents and property owners within 1;000 feet of the project and all individuals on the interested party list for the project; and, WHEREAS, the Pldnning Commission held a properly noticed public hearing on August 14. 2012. in accordance with the City of Petalumalrnplementing Zoning Ordinance,Section 24.030. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby approves the Site Plan and Architectural Review for the Project and authorizes site improvements for Project contained in said plans based on the findings made below and subject to the conditions of approval attached as,Exhibit A hereto and incorporated herein by reference: 1. The project as conditioned will conform to the intent, goals. and policies of the Petaluma General Plan 2025: I-P-6 Encourage mixed-use development, which include opportunities for increased transit;access. 1-P-14 Require provision of street Trees, landscaping, parking and access features to help integrate and uses and achieve an effective transition between uses of disparate intensities. 2-P-5 Strengthen the visual and aesthetic character of major arterial corridors. 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 c;i' -, ;, , ,. ;'Planningcornmss1gn1Resolution No.2012-13 Page 1 /• I • reflective of enhanced connections.provided by the new cross-town connector and interchange at Rainier Avenue. 2-P-88 Provide enhanced pedestrian and bicycle network connections between the industrial, commercial, and residential clusters: 2-P-89 Allow for a range of uses, including commercial, office, and residential, in the mixed use area'an the southwest corner of North McDowell and Rainier Avenue. 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 along the river and creek corridors. 4-P-9 Require a percentage of parking spaces in large parking lots or garages •to provide electrical vehicle charging facilities. 5-P-23 Require the provision of pedestrian site access for all new'development. 5-P-31 Make bicycling and walking more desirable by providing or requiring development to provide necessary support facilities throughout the city. 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. 9-P-1 Retain and attract 'basic' economic activities that bring dollars into the local economy by exporting products and services. The proposed project as condition is consistent with the goals, policies and programs of the General Plan in that Deer Creek Village in that the project includes a mix of uses and incorporates new transit facilities within to the site design and will convert a vacant infill site • and strengthen the visual and aesthetic character of the 'McDowell corridor through • orientation of facades toward the street, landscape buffer from parking areas, construction of a Class I pathway along the North McDowell frontage and installation of street trees and other landscaping. The commercial nature of the proposed Deer'Creek Village project will • provide a transition between industrial uses to the north, office uses to the south, and residential uses to the east and has been designed to transition between larger major tenant buildings along the Highway 101 frontage and the smaller individual single story buildings closer to McDowell. Significant enhanced pedestrian and bicycle connections are incorporated into the project design and link into the enhancement and preservation of the Deer Creek swale. Incorporation of support facilities such as secure bicycle parking, public plazas, drinking fountains, benches, and public art further enhance the pedestrian and bicycle connections within the project site. • 2. The Project, as conditioned, will not constitute a nuisance or be detrimental to the public welfare of the community because it conforms to the Petaluma Implementing Zoning Ordinance ("1101.j. The project is zoned MU]B, Mixed Use and the uses proposed for the Project are all permitted uses in the MUIB zoning district. The project landscape plan and provisions for tree preservation are consistent with IZO Chapters 14 and 17, respectively. Onsite parking is consistent with the provisions outlined in IZO Chapter 11. 3. The, proposed project is consistent with the development standards of the MUIB zoning designation,including setbacks from property lines, height limitations, and tot coverage. 4. The vacation of the existing sewer easement on the property and relocation of the sewer main and associated easement is consistent with General Plan Polity 8-G-4 in that the segment of existing sewer main proposed to be removed is part of the City's collection system and will be replaced by the developer to the.latest City and industry standards at the expense of the applicant. 5. The proposed project as conditioned conforms to the requirements of IZO Section 24.010G, Site Plan and Architectural Review Standards for Review of Applications as follows: l Planning commis{ion Resolution No 2012-13 �JPage 22^/ �. Co — - The project includes the appropriate use of quality materials and harmony and proportion of the overall design. the proposed project uses a variety of exterior materials, including stone, wood, Metal, glass, plaster, tile, split face CMU, and living walls 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 development orients both towards frontages such as North McDowell and interior within the development and between individual buildings. the architectural style is appropriate for the project and compatible with the overall character of the neighborhood. The architectural style of the proposed project provides transition between existing industrial development to the north, office/medical uses to the south, and residential development to the east. Additionally, the transition 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 architectural 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 have 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 for the project's surroundings. The proposed sign program provides a cohesive and integrated approach to signage for the Deer Creek Village center as a whole. A variety of materials and colors are encouraged but the parameters of the program ensure consistency. The master sign program outlines maximum square footage for each of the 36 tenants, consistent with the parameters of the Implementing Zoning Ordinance. The freestanding signs are designed with colors, materials, and decorative features found in the architecture of the site. All signs are internally illuminated and have been conditioned to include automatic sensors to shut-off during day time hours and dim during non-business, late night, and early morning hours.. Landscaping shall be in keeping with the'character or design of the site. 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 landscaping is focused within the 100 foot wide Deer Creek buffer zone and enhances the experience along the pedestrian pathways along the edges of this linear open space. Existing trees along the Highway 101 �'.( rji y +t. TIdnningCdrncniuior Resolution No.2012-13 Pnage3 corridor will not be removed as part of this project. The overalllandscaping concept orients and connects the large development, and enhances the architectural design and siting. Ingress, egress, internal circulation for bicycles and automobiles, off-street automobiles and parking facilities and pedestrian ways shall be designed to promote safety and convenience and shall conform to City Standards. Plans pertaining to pedestrian, 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 automobiles: 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. ADOPTED this 14th day of August, 2012, by the following vote: Committee members, . Aye, No Absent`: Abstain Abercrombie X Elias X - Herries X Johnson X Kearney X Chair Pierre X Vice Chair Wolpert X .L... Apr .�' At.erre, r .ir 1� ATTES r: APPRO� 5 JO FORM: 7/Iyl/ If er Hines, Commis.'.n Secretary Eric Danly, y Attorney • 'Pldnning commtzsion Resolution No 2012-13 Page 4 Exhibit A SPAR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DEER CREEK VILLAGE INTERSECTION OF NORTH MCDOWELL AND RAINER APNs: 007-380-005 and 007.380-027 File No. 09-SPC-0091 Planning Division 1. This Site Plan and Architectural Review authorizes construction of an approximately 345,000 square foot commercial shopping center as shown on plans dated stamped July 25, 2012 and located at North McDowell and Rainier, APNs 007-380-005 and 007-380-027. 2. Plans submitted for building permit review shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plan set dated stamped July 25, 2012. 3. Prior to issuance of a building permit/grading permit revised plans shall illustrate the following modifications: a. All conditions of approval and mitigation measures from the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in the Deer Creek Village Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2004092093) ("FEIR") shall be listed on the first sheet of the office and job site copies of the building permit plans. b. Modify the south elevation of the Bank building to provide more interaction along the interior Main Street (A-14); c.. Revise the north elevation of the Grocery Store to increase interaction and pedestrian orientation along North McDowell (A-8); d. Revise landscape plan to add appropriate landscaping of the corner City parcel at the intersection of North McDowell and Rainier and along the future Rainier frontage and provide continuity with the project (LP-01); e. Employee showers shall be illustrated for all applicable tenant spaces in compliance with the requirements of Section 11.090C of the IZO and all employee showers shall have interior access and include bathroom facilities. 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. f. At least ten electrical vehicle charging stations shall be shown on site improvement plans and shall be distributed in groups around the site to provide convenience in all areas of the shopping center; g. Increase the number of preferential parking spaces in key quadrants of the project and especially adjacent to the office buildings; h. Revise landscape plan to increase tree planting along Highway 101 corridor to further screen the buildings; i. Redesign conflicting parking spaces at corners of interior parking lot to ensure unrestricted access (A-1); j. Eliminate freeway oriented signage on the rear facades of the major tenants (A-3A and A-5); k. Increase three tier landscaping along North McDowell frontage; I. Incorporate greater building articulation between Majors 2, 3, and 4: and m. Incorporate greater articulation on the south elevation of the Fitness Center. 4. Particular attention shall be paid to architectural detailing to improve four sided architecture on all buildings. '✓ ;f'lanninglcommrssion Resolution No 2012-13 Page 5 • 5. The project shall be subject to all applicable development impact and other-City fees. 6. All mitigation measures as adopted in conjunction with the FEIR are herein incorporated by reference as conditions of project ap'provol. 7. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the plan shall note the installation of high efficiency heating equipment (90% or higher heating/furnaces) and low NOx water heaters (40 NOx or less) in compliance with policy 4-P-15D (reducing emissions). 8. No business identification signs shall be permitted on the back/rear of the buildings facing the freeway. • 9. Upon approval of project entitlements, the applicant shall pay the Notice of Determination fee to the Planning Division. The check shall be made payable to the County Clerk. Planning staff will file the Notice of Determination.with the County Clerk's office within five days of project approval. 10. Prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit, all plans shall include the following requirements and all construction contracts shall include the some requirements (or measures shown to be equally effective, as approved by Planning), in compliance with General Plan Policy 4-P-16: • Maintain construction equipment engines in good condition and in proper tune per manufacturer's specification for the duration of construction: • • Minimize idling time for construction related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment; • Use alternative fuel construction equipment (i.e.. compressed natural gas, liquid petroleum gas, and unleaded gasoline); • Use add-on control-devices such as diesel oxidation catalysts or particulate filters; • Use diesel equipment that meets the CARB's 2000 or newer certification standard for off- road heavy-duty diesel engines; • Phase construction of the project; • • Limit the hours of operation for heavy duty equipment. II. Prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit, the applicant shall provide a Construction Phase Recycling Plan that would address the reuse and recycling of major waste materials (soil, vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal scraps, cardboard, packing, etc.) generated by the construction of the project and in compliance with General Plan Policy 2-P-122 for review by the planning staff. 12. The applicant shall apply for and obtain a sign permit prior to installation of each sign and in conformance with an approved master sign program for the shopping center. 13. Subject to applicable law, the Project shall not include any retail use that contains book sales as a primary use and is larger than 5,000 square feet of gross floor area. 14. Issuance of a building permit is conditioned upon approval by the City Council of vacation of an existing sewer easement which underlies a portion of the proposed Friedman's building (C-2 on the project plans), consisting of approximately 7350 square feet, ("the Easement"), dedication of a new sewer easement by the applicant over the project property which is satisfactory to the City Engineer and relocation of the existing • sewer main located in the Easement to the new easement, all at the expense of the applicant. • _. _, - ;Planning Commisslon•Resoiution No.2012-13 Pape 6 15. Approval of the on-site parking layout is contingent on Pldnning Commission approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a parking reduction of 10%_ If:said Conditional Use Permit is not approved the site plan shall be revised to accommodate on-site parking consistent with the parking requirements as outlined in the IZO and as required to accommodate all individual uses on the site. 16. All work within the public right-of-way requires an encroachment permit from the Public Works department. 17. In the event that archaeological remains are encountered during grading, work shall be • halted temporarily and a qualified archaeologist shall be consulted for evaluation of the artifacts and to recommend future action. The local Native American community shall • also be notified and consulted in the event any archaeological remains are uncovered. • 18. Improvement plans shall include appropriate tree protection measures consistent with' General Plan policies and all applicable City regulations to ensure adequate protection of the existing Oak trees along the southern property line adjacent to.Highway 101. 19. The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its officials, boards, commissions, agents, officers and employees ("Indemnitees") from any claim, action or proceeding against Indemnitees to attack, set aside, void or annul any of the approvals of the project. The applicant's duty to defend, indemnify and hold harmless in accordance with this condition shall apply to any and all claims, actions or proceedings brought concerning the project, not just such claims. actions or proceedings brought within the time period provided for in applicable State and/or local statutes. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding concerning the project. The City shall cooperate fully in the defense. Nothing contained in this condition shall prohibit the City from participating in the defense of any claim, action, or proceeding, and it the City chooses to do so, applicant shall reimburse City for attorneys' fees and costs incurred by the City. 20. No storage, racking, or uncovered sales area shall be visible from outside of the • Friedman's yard enclosure at any time. 21. Operation of the security entrance/exit to the Friedman's yard shall not include cashiers or provisions for payment for merchandise, but shall act only as a security check for outgoing merchandise. Patrons shall be required to turn off their engines during loading. 22. The applicant shall continue to work collaboratively with staff and the Petaluma Public Art Committee to finalize the master art program for the. Project and shall submit the necessary documentation prior to issuance of a building or grading permit that all criteria for public art as outlined in Chapter 18 of the_1ZO has been satisfied. 23. The applicant shall be responsible for construction and limited term maintenance of a fence and associated landscaping along the rear property lines of those residential properties backing onto the east side of North McDowell between the southern edge of the Sandalwood Mobile Home Park and Professional Drive and along both sides of Rainier Avenue from North McDowell to Prince Albert. The ultimate design of the fence • shall be determined by staff after outreach to said residential neighbors. The fence shall be shown on improvement plans and shall be part of the initial phase of construction. The applicant shall be responsible for one year maintenance of all new fencing and five year maintenance of all new landscaping located in the public right-of-way. 24. The applicant shall obtain and install benches from the Petaluma High School metal shop program for incorporation into the project. • �, l ? F;prang Commission Resolution No 2012-13 Page 7 25. Enhanced paving shall be used for all pedestrian walkways and crosswalks to further enhance the pedestrian amenities. 26. Loading areas, vehicles, parking lots, meters, outdoot storage, etc„ shall be adequately screened to the extent possible. 27. All planting shall be maintained in good growing condition. Such maintenance shall include where appropriate, pruning, moving, weeding, cleaning, fertilizing, and regular watering. Whenever necessary, planting shall be replaced with other plant materials to insure continued compliance with the approved landscape plan. 28. Building permit plans shall include installation of electrical conduit in all buildings to facilitate solar installation. The fitness center building shall also-be preplumbed for solar. 29. The Deer Creek Swale and 50 foot development buffer shall be clearly identified on plans and all amenities, including walkway, art installation, benches, water fountains, bike parking; and kiosks shall be outside of•said buffer. 30. Truck traffic for Major tenants shall enter and exit the site on Lynch Creek Way or North McDowell Boulevard and shall not use internal bridges. 31. The project applicant shall work with city staff to explore opportunities for a lighted crosswalk on Rainier Avenue at either Prince Albert or Rushmore. 32. Gooseneck or similar lighting for freestanding signs shall be considered to minimize • potential lighting impacts and full use of-halo lighting for signs is encouraged. Fire Marshal 33. Provide fire truck turning templates on construction drawings to demonstrate adequate turning for emergency vehicles. Modify site access as necessary to accommodate adequate fire truck turning and access in coordination with the City Engineer and the Fire Marshal. 34. For the area within the Major 1/Friedman's yard a "20 foot wide EVA" shall be lined (lines • showing 20 toot limit) on the pavement and marked at intervals with "No Parking/Fire Lane". We expect the. EVA will need to run outside the proposed outside storage piles and will need clarification/verification regarding the "Loading Berths", grade change, and that the EVA will be able to pass through this area unimpeded. No storage shall be allowed over the EVA and a revised Site Circulation System Map including the proposed EVA with signage shall be submitted for review. We understand that the area between "Major 1 and Dry Shed" is open and drivable and the "hashed area" at one end is a valley gutter not a wall. 35. Minimum tire flow for buildings shall be calculated as specified in the 2010 California Fire Code Appendix B, "Fire Flow Requirements for Buildings". Please be advised that if building Fire flow calculations cannot be made at the time of project submittal, the following fire flows shall apply: Commercial, Industrial, and Multifamily Residentidl: 2500 GPM at 20 psi residual (available for firefighting). When building fire flows are submitted, these flows shall be•adjusted in accordance with Appendix B. " 1 TI Planingtbinti)issionResolution No.2012-13 Pa e 8 r 36. Proof of the required fire flow shall be provided to the Fire Marshal's Office prior to issuance of the building permit.The FMO shall not accept less than minimum fire flow and pressure. 'It shall be the developer's responsibility ',to' make private and/or public improvements to the system to meet the watertlow dertiands of the project: 37. The two fire hydrants marked along North' McDowell that are shown as "Existing, Fire Hydrant to be Relocated" shall be moved the.oppropriate distance necessary to ovoid the "'road cutaway' . This will necessitate adding two hydrants within the Deer Creek development at or near the inbound lanes near the Bank.and Pharmacy. This better balances hydrant resources within the development-and has been discussed with the Project Engineer (Mr. Wayne Leach). An additional hydrant needs to be added back to the plans along the interior road near the Bank's northwest;as shown on'previous plans. Hydrant locations for the rest of the site generally look acceptable, but we still reserve the right to adjust and or add hydrants depending on possible changing'conditions. The Fire Marshal's Office will work cooperatively With the developer to provide'comments as the'site improvement plans are developed. 38. The plans submitted show the approximate "rough" locations where fire department connections (FDC) and post indicator valves (PIV) locations may be located. Revised site improvement plans shall include more detailed.inforrnation:such as tut sheets for double detector check valves, FDCs/PIVs, along with precise locations. Asia reminder FDCs and PIVs should be within approximately 50 feet of a hydrant and it maybe necessary to add hydrants and/or move FDCs: and locating these will need to be coordinated with the Fire Marshal's Office. 39. All commercial building's (or portions thereof) shall be protected by an automatic tire sprinkler system as required by the City of Petaluma Municipal Code;`and:shall conform to NFPA 13 requirements. The fire sprinkler system shall be provided with central station alarm system designed in accordance with NFPA 72 and addressable'•to each,building. A local alarm shall be.provided on the exterior of the building AND a normally occupied location in the interior of the building. All systems require 31set ofplahs to be submitted to the Fire Marshal's Office for review and approval. If any of the structures are three stories or taller; Class One standpipes will be required. 40. The Friedman's store and "Dry Shed" will have "high pile storage" and we require any proposed high pile or higher hazard commodities to be reviewed independently by a Qualified Professional Engineer (QPE) or Are Protection Engineer (FPE). Rack storage and all areas must be fully compliant with the California Fire Code Chapter 23 (High-Piled Combustible Storage) and NFPA 13 (Standard for Fire Sprinklers). The QPE or FPE must submit a detailed report to the Fire Prevention Bureau verifying the fire sprinkler systems (including rack storage area) are compliant with all Chapter 23 and NFPA 4-3 requirements. Please be advised, this isa requirement and plans submitted without the required FPE report will be delayed. 41. A plan showing all fire lane signs and red-curbing shall be subrriitted:toathe Fire Marshal's Office for approval. This can be integrated with parking/stripping plan. Be'advised, we reserve the right to request that "No Parking Fire Lane" where no curbs exist or if other visibility issues arise and warrant this requirement. 42. All buildings shall include lighted address'numbers.that are clearly visible-from the Street. Numbers are to be o minimum of six inches (6") high with contrasting background. 43. A Knox box for fire department access for each building shall be provided. Location of the Knox box shall generally be near the sprinkler/riser exterior door and shall be verified by the fire inspector during inspection. ' - P : nonning,corrimission'Resolution No 2012.13 Page 9 44, Provide one (1) fire extinguisher with a minimum,2A']0BC-rating for each 3000 square feet of office space and no more than 757feet travel distance from any location to a fire extinguisher, and/or Provide (I) fire extinguisher with.a minimum 2A20BC-rating for each 1500 square feet of warehouse space and no more than 50-feet travel distance from any location to a fire extinguisher. Fire extinguishers shall be visible and easily accessible, located in egress pdthways, and mounted no higher than"5' from top of extinguisher to finished floor. 45. This review was conducted for the preliminary plan set dated 12/21/12 and if significant changes are made to buildings, EVA's, or access that require additional review; we reserve the right to modify and/oradd conditions of approval. Public Works All conditions shall be addressed at the lime of improvement plan review by the City and prior to issuance of any construction permits, unless otherwise noted. Street and frontage Improvements 46. Street and frontage improvements shall be constructed as proposed on the application plans and consistent with project phasing, according to City standards and as directed by these conditions of approval. Improvements shall include but not be limited to pavement, curb, gutter, sidewalk, traffic islands, traffic signals; traffic signs, pavement striping and markers, pedestrian ramps, bike lanes, streetlights,'etc. Improvements shall meet accessible standards. Pavement conforms shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The decorative crosswalks at the project access points shall be constructed on private property, maintained by the property owner and designed to support vehicle traffic loads. 47. Modifications to intersections, traffic- signals and traffic 'ones shall be subject to the project traffic study, environmental impact report and the-direction of the City Engineer. 48. The minimum pavement section shall be 6-inches of asphalt concrete over 21-inches of class 2 aggregate base for McDowell Boulevard North and Rainier Avenue. 49. "No Parking" signs shall be placed along McDowell'Boulevard North and Rainier Avenue. 50. Street lights shall be installed and/or relocated as required by the,City":Engineer along McDowell Boulevard North and Rainier Avenue. As an option'and at the discretion'of.-the City Engineer, the City may require LED street lights. 51. Traffic control plans shall be prepared in accordance with the Manual on.,Uniform.Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. 52. Remove and replace any broken or displaced curb, gutter and sidewalk along the entire North McDowell Boulevard frontage. 53. Any proposed Monument Signs for the "Deer Creek Village shall be located such that they are out of the required sight distance triangle. The applicant's engineer shall provide sight distance calculations, per Caltrans standards. with the improvement plan and building permit submittals. No monument signs shall be located in the area designated for future widening of the intersection of N. McDowell'and Rainier for Route 101/ Rainier Interchange or Undercrossing Project. ,r 13t 3 Planning'Coinrnisslon Resolution No.2012-13. Page 10 • - l0 54. A Class I Bike/Pedestrians path (10 feet wide) shall be constructed along the N. McDowell frontage of the project. 55. A traffic signal shall be installed at N. McDowell and Professional Drive for mitigating the traffic impacts of the proposed project. 56. Raised median islands shall be installed between Rainier Avenue and Professional Drive' and Professional Drive and Lynch Creek Road to prohibit left turns out of the two proposed right in /right out driveways for Deer Creek Plaza on N. McDowell. 57. Rainier Avenue extension on the west side of N. McDowell shall be constructed up to the proposed driveway io the Deer Creek Village, consistent with project phasing. The west end of this extension shall be constructed as a,cul-de-sae(50 feet radius) based on City of Petaluma standards to facilitate Petaluma Transit Buses to make U turns coming out of the Transit Yard. No parking signs and red curb shall be installed within the cul-de-sac area. The traffic signal at N. McDowell and Rainier intersection shall be modified to accommodate this extension. 58. Provide truck turning templates on the construction drawings:for the proposed pharmacy and demonstrate adequate turning for the appropriate delivery truck vehicle. Modify parking in the area as necessary to accommodate adequate truck turning area. 59. Provide the proposed truck route for the grocery store on the signing and striping plans submitted with the construction drawings. 60. No utility vaults or trees shall be installed on the northeast corner of the Deer Creek Village project since the intersection of N. McDowell and Rainier will be widened for the Rainier Avenue Interchange/ Undercrossing. Grading 61. Grading, excavation and compaction shall conform to the soils report prepared for this site. 62. All above-ground or below-ground structures (buildings, fences, pipes, conduits, etc.) that are not necessary for the project shall be removed. 63. The applicant shall submit erosion and sediment control plans, a storm water pollution prevention plan SWPPP) and provide a copy of the signed Notice of Intent (NOI) submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board. A Notice of Termination (NOT) shall be submitted to the SWRCB upon completion of the project. 64. The applicant is required to fund erosion control and storm water quality inspections by City public works inspectors throughout the life of the construction project, as part of the cost recovery application. Water and Sanitary Sewer Systems 65. Relocate the existing sanitary sewer main,as proposed on the site plans and dedicate a new public sewer easement prior to issuance of any building permits. The applicant has submitted an application for abandonment of the portion of the existing public sewer easement that is no longer needed (application number 11.2-ABN-0417). The k!� , r _-, ,., )t 'Plgnrnng'commissionResolutlon.No.2012-13 Pagel] � - 11 abandonment is a City Council approval process and shall be approved prior to issuance of any building permits. 66. All on-site sewer systems except the existing and relocated City trunk main shall be privately owned and maintained and labeled as such on the construction drawings. 67. The trash enclosures with sanitary sewer drains shall be covered and not allow rain water to enter the sanitary sewer system. 68. The on-site water system shall be public and constructed bs proposed on the application plan per City standards. 69. Provide signed grant deeds, legal descriptions and plats for all public easements to the City of Petaluma for the water main system, including fire hydrants, meters and services prior to issuance of a building permit. The easements will be recorded by the City after construction of the utility is complete. 70. The water system shall be capable of delivering a continuous fire flow as designated by the fire marshal. Provide final fire flow calculations for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. 7). Show gate valve locations and profiles on new City maintained.facilities (water and trunk. sewer). 72. Aft landscaping shalt meet City Standards for low water use. Storm Drain System 73. The applicant shall submit detailed, construction plan level hydraulic and hydrology calculations for the on-site storm drairisystem for review and approval by the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA) and City of Petaluma. The calculations shall include the two new proposed bridges/culverts over Deer Creek. The preliminary storm water calculations submitted as part of the environmental review .process concluded that storm water detention should probably be avoided because detention may slow on-site peak runoff and increase downstream peak flow in the Petaluma River. The calculations shall assess the need for on-site storm water detention, subject to the review and approval by the City of Petaluma. Should the calculations determine that on-site detention is necessary, the applicant, shall install a storm water detention system designed.to detain the 100-year event. The applicant's civil engineer/hydrologist should contact the City Engineer to discuss the scope of the peer review prior to preparing the final storm water calculations. The final calculations are required to be peer reviewed by the City's storm water model consultant. The City will manage the peer review process. The applicant shall be responsible for funding the peer review process including all time. and materials for City staff and its,consultants. 74. All storm water systems and calculations shall include detention and'treatment systems that meet the requirements of the NPDES, City of. Petaluma Phase II Storm Water Regulations including Attachment 4 requirements for post construction storm water runoff, as well as City standards. 75. All on-site storm drain systems are to be privately maintained including Deer Creek. Dedicate a hydraulic easement to the City of Petaluma allowing continued use of Deer Creek to accept runoff from upstream public storm drain systems. .:„ `" PlgnningCommission'Resolution,No.. dl2-13 Page 12 Miscellaneous 76. Existing overhead distribution utilities, 12kv or, less, along the street frontages and/or traversing the site shall be placed underground. 77. Dedicate the required public street right-of-way to construct the proposed street, sidewalk and landscaping improvements. etc. required to serve the project; on North McDowell Boulevard and Rainer Avenue. 78. Dedicate the required public easements for the proposed traffic signal infrastructure and loops at the project entrance on Professional Drive. 79. The existing irrevocable offer of dedication for public streets and utilities, as described in Petaluma Parcel Map 170, shall be vacated prior to issuance Of any building permits.The vacation requires approval by the City Council. The applicant has submitted application number 12-ABN-048 on 07/24/2012. 80. Dedicate as public right-of-way, the portion of Parcel B to provide the City's ultimate right of way necessary for buildout of Rainier Avenue, subject to City approval, per the existing plan line for the future Rainier crosstown connector'and roadway project as well as Parcel C for North McDowell Boulevard, per the City of 'Petaluma Ordinance 1991 N.C.S. 81. A 10-foot wide public utility easement (PUE) shall be dedicated adjacent to and along all public street right-of-ways as required'by the City Engineer. 82. Record a lot line adjustment or merge the two existing properties (APN 007-380-005 & 027) prior to issuance of any building permits. 83. Utility trenching in any new street construction and/or paverent overlay shall require pavement grinding-and repaving as described by City Ordinance No. 2266 NCS. 84. Maintenance of the water quality treatment system and any required storm drain detention system shall be the responsibility of the property owner(s). A financial and operation plan for maintenance, inspection, reporting, etc.,shall be submitted for review and approval by the City of Petaluma, and recorded, prior to issuance of a building permit. 85. Public improvement plans shall be prepared for the construction of improvements in the public right-of-way and City utilities on private property. All improvements shall be designed in accordance with City Standards and Specifications. Joint trench plans shaft also be submitted. A public improvement agreement, bonds, insurance and tees shall be required. Provide scanned record drawings prior to the release of the performance bond. The public improvements shall be complete and accepted prior to any final inspection or the issuance of any certificate of occupancy. .. i s r- , as. = "Picnning`Commi;sion Resolution No 2012-13 Fagg 13 �� • Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee 86., The number and type of bicycle racks as shown.on plans reviewed by the PBAC shall.be shown on final pions prior to issuance of building,permit. A minimum of 150sbic_ycle racks shall be provided, including 80 covered and.70 uncovered. The,bicycie racks.shall.be in generally the some locations as reviewed by the PBAC and should be kept away from trash receptacles, dispersed throughout the larger development, and include separate racks to serve individual buildings. Post and loop bike racks shall be installed,as sho4vn.on plans labeled M/SA-05, and meeting 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 cityand complementing the building designs, while meeting city specifications. Whenever possible, the applicant shall Iodate racks near doors and with adequate lighting. 87. Signage shall be installed at drive and street entrances along North McDowell alerting vehicle traffic to Class I users. 88. A minimum 8-foot wide Class I shared use path;:shall.be constructed along.both sides of the Deer Creek swale buffer and a loop path:around the dog Walk area shall be installed as an interim use of property within adopted plan line for Rainier interchange project. 89. A minimum 8-toot decomposed granite,pathway,shall'.be constructed-to the rear of the Major tenant buildings, connecting with Lynch Creek Way. The pathway shall be elevated from the adjacent parking area by 6 inches. The,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. 90. Crosswalks interior to the project shall be installed as,shoWn on plans and including at south side of Major 1 and Lynch Creek Way, near the fitness center,across parking lots between Shops D and Grocery, and southern exit from project turning right onto McDowell. These crosswalks shall be differentiated through the use of colored or marked pavements. 91. To enhance safe pedestrian access to the project's McDowell frontage/village aspect of the project adjacent to "Shop C and Medical Building 2', clearly defined crosswalks, signage and barricades shall be installed to guide pedestrians. 92. To the greatest extent feasible, all walkways-within-the project shall be a mihirnum of 6- feel wide. 93. The three separate, designated walkways located in the parking areas in front of the Major buildings as shown on the plans shall be constructed with raised/colored pavement to provide safe convenient passage for shoppers/pedestrians in the east/west directions from Major I to the Medical Office building and.from Major 1's'garden center to Shops B and Major 3 to Shops A. These walkways shall.have.a minimum clearance width of 6-feet (after consideration of vehicle overhang) but ideally 8=feet it it can be accommodated, between parked cars to allow movement of shoppers with carts and pedestrians and strollers. 94. The applicant shall install signs at the intersection of Rainier and McDowell alerting cyclists to use the Class I shared'facility instead of riding in the street. 95. Signs indicating "employee and truck delivery passage only" shall be installed at Major Tenants I,2 and 4 to discourage public traffic on the west.side of retail buildings. � 1 ; , Plbhningcornt ission'Resolution No.2012-13 Page 14 4 96. Signs shall be installed at the rear of project alerting through truck traffic to pedestrians/bicyclists using the Class I pathway:to.Lynch creek Drive. 97. Exterior lighting shall be high quality and specifically placed within the development to guide the way to and near exterior bike rack and bike locker locations, along the dog walking loop, along the Class I path to the rear of the major tenant spaces, and along the Deer Creek swale paths. 98. All exterior lighting shall provide a "soft wash" of light against the wall and shall be hooded and directed downward with no direct glare. 99. Water fountains, accessible to people and their dogs/service animals shall be installed at the dog walking loop,. along the Class I path- along Deer Creek, in the plaza areas between Professional Building and Medical Office, Between Shops A and B, and near Restaurant A. 100. Public benches shall be installed along Deer Creek, at the dog-walking loop, and behind Major 3 and 4. 101. Outdoor sealing 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 or other outdoor events. COPY O r i f p l T ;PtonningjCan n fission,Resoly lion No.2012-13 Page 5 I 19 ATTACHMENT 7 Resolution No. 2012-040 N.C.S: • of the City of Petaluma, California CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 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 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 betweenMarch 3, 2011 and April 18, 2011, after,public notice inviting comments on the Draft EIR given in compliance With CEQA Guidelities.Section 15087; and, WHEREAS;.the Draft EIR relies on the.EIR fo rihe 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 implementingahe mitigation measures contained in the Implementation Plan;and Mitigation Monitoring Program adopted by the City as Exhibit B to Resolution 2008 7084 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 FIR; 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, i , , `tit= tiResolutrot No.:'?012'090 N.C.S. Page WHEREAS, the City Council held a noticed public meeting on February 27, 2012 and April 2, 2012, at which time it considered the Final EIR and accepted public testimony; and, WHEREAS,certain:Project impacts will remain,signilicant and unavoidable, even after the application of all feasible'Project mitigatiommedsures'to lessen those impacts, including: a) contribution to the cumulative:city-wide traffic noise impacts; b) NO 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 f) continued LOS F operations on Highway 101 between Pepper Road and Old Redwood and East Washington and Lakeville; and, 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 ttoCEQA Guidelines Section 15091"(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. NOW, THEREFORE, BEFIT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby certifies the Final Environmental Impact Report and finds as follows: I. The Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project has been-completed in compliance withCEQA, the CEQA;Guidelines, and the City of Petaluma Environmental Review Guidelines. 2. The Final Environmental Impact Report was:presented.tothe 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 ofthe potential for environmental impacts of the.Project. Urider,the power and authority conferred upon.this Council by the Charter of said City. .71 REFERENCE: I hereby cenify the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted by the AplSro.kdas to n Couul ol`the City of Petaluma at a Regular meeting:on the 2n°day of April,3012; , f um' by the following.vote: Cit -Attorney AYES: i\Ibertion,Harris. Healy,Kearney NOES: Barren.Mayor Glass, Viet Mayor Renee ABSENT: .None ABSTAIN: None ''/I � ' // hputy iiy C r 1ayor r r , (2iesolutioe.i. P 012-Q40N.C.S. Paget • ATTACHMENT 8 Resolution No. 2012-041 N.C.S. of the City of Petaluma, California MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND ADOPTING A MI'I'IGATION`MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FORTHE DEER CREEK VILLAGE PROJECT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITYACT 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, 201,0, 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;Enviromnental Review Guidelines:And circulated for public review between March 3,'2011 and April 18, 201,1, aftcr'public notice inviting comments on the Draft EIR given in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15087; and, WHEREAS, the Draft EIR,relies on the E1R 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 hasicommitted 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:CtS.,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 ot'such persons and.agencies; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 22, 2011 to consider the Draftt 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 thine it considered the Final EIR and accepted public testimony: and, ''„>.1)H1 Utesoluuon.N4d?2012,-041 N'.C,S. Page I �� 1 • WHEREAS, the City Council held a noticed public meetings.on February 27, 2012 and April 2, 2012, at`which.time it considered the Final FIR and accepted public testimony; and, WHEREAS, certain Project impacts will remaintSignificant 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) NO 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(b) 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 re I ied on in the findings are fully implemented; and WHEREAS, some mitigation Measures identified in Exhibit A may require action by, or cooperation front; other agencies. Similarly, mitigation measures:requinirig the applicant to contribute toward improvements planned by other agencies will require the relevant agencies to receive the funds and spend their appropriately. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: I. 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 is the attached Exhibit A, which is incorporated herein by reference. 3. As=i'equiredby CEQA and based on substantial evidence in the record, the City Counbil•adopt9 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 theStateinent of Overriding Considerations regarding significant and unavoidable;effects of the Project contained in the attached Exhibit C, which is incorporated herein by reference. t 5. TIie,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 COP'S - ✓"'+Cz! ':F:?I Stared at The i.ResolutionNo:;20 f2F041 N.C.S. Paget � �2 implemented. Compliance with the MMRP shalibe 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 responsibilityand jurisdiction of the public agency identified, and the measures can and should be adopted and/or impleinented,by said agency. 7. The custodian of documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings for the Project is the City of Petaluma, Planning Division, Petaluma City Hall,.1 1 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 ofDetemiination pursuant to CEQA. Under the power and authority conferred upon this Council by the Chancr of;said City. / REFERENCE: 1 hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted by the /App ove as to Council of the City of I'etaluma.at a Regular meeting on die 2nd day of April;2012, (fo by the following vole, K III Cit Attorney AYES: Albertson,Harris.Healy. Kearney NOES: Barrett.Mayor Glass, Vice Mayor Renee ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None • ATTEST: 19 1® k_.�As All /Age i Deputy City or' ayor 4 =, • cR;esoluuo■ No4013=p41 N.C.S. Page 3 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 frill. The text of the Draft and Final EIRs should be consulted for a complete description of the impacts and mitigations. Impact GEO-I: 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, bridges and structures. Mitigation GEO-lc: 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-Id: 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. 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 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, that the improvements have been constructed in accordance with the geotechnical specifications. Mitigation CEO-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-l. 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 E1R. Finding: Additional mitigation measures described in the Final EIR further reduce dust and PMIO 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-la: 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-1d: The storm 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 BIO-1: The project has the potential to impact special status species. Mitigation B1¢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 B1O-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 RWQOB 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-I: 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 equipnientpriorto 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. • • 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-1 f: 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-1g: 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 fight-of-way is not available for correction because of the built-outnieighborhood 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 ekigting plus pipeline plus project 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-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 sane 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. Impact TRAFFIC-8a: Impact 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 McDowell Boulevard 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. X710 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-11b: If the Class I facility along the project frontage of North McDowell Boulevard is improperly designed there'could.be conflicts with projects Ariveways on North McDowell Boulevard. Mitigation TRAFFIC-11a and I lb: 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 Mitigatioh 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. impact TRAFFIC-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 EIR. Impact. CULT-1: 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, bottle's, and other cultural materials from the project site. Mitigation CULT-1 b: 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-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. 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 EIR. • gti /1.4 EXHIBIT B FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15126(a) states that an EIR 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 Tong term fiscal health no provide a home improvement 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 87,500 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 Alternative. 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. x / 16 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 1. Legal Basis and Background Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the City Council of the City of Petaluma adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations for those impacts identified in the General Plan EIR 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 ER, 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 ERR 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. • Impact 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 ER 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-I0 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. 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 ow 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. 1. 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 May bersomewhat 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 td 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,isprojected 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 thesCity 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 xl 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 FEIA 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 Project applicant 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 thafthe 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. � � 21 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 of the shops and roadway in the eastern portion of the development provides a community gathering area for activities such as farmers markets, festivals and other community events. This meets a need of the East Petaluma community for gathering 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,of the 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 (DEW) 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 (DEIR) 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) • Implementing Party, 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 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 Shaking 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.). CEO-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-Id 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 Agency 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 slightlyabove the optimum moisture content prior to compaction. ./2A' 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 (psi), 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 ( 1 3/4 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 E1745-97. 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 backfill material that is not expansive. 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 treatment 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 20-04of 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:app_ropriate. 3. Material and equipment for implementation of erosion control measures shall be on-site by October 1st. 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 31s'. 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: 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 NOS 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. .1.0. All exposed surfaces shall be watered at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil moisture of 12 percent. Moisture content can beverifed 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. tO 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 the use of add-on control devices such as diesel oxidation catalysts or particulate filters. • 25. Phase construction of the project as proposed in the DEIR project description at page II1-34. 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 incentives, 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 1.10- 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, landscaping 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 indirectly 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 Department/BAAQMD 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 / 9172 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—lb In accordance with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations, the applicant shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for i"niplementation 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-id 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 R/O-I Special Status Species BIO-la Site grading shall be conducted in accordance with the City's Storm Water/Grading-and Erosion Control Ordinance. $10-Ib All construction 'activities in and immediately adjacent to trees or shrubs providing potential nesting habitat for raptors or other birds should be conducted tg 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 310-2 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 tg 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 P.M, 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-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. 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-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. 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-If The constriction 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-lg 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 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 upon the proposed project. Monitoring Phase Pre-construction/Construction Implementing Party Applicant/Contractor Enforcement Agency Public Works/Community Del/element Department Monitoring Agency Public Works/Community Development Department • • (a 41 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-11 a 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 gb 9f1 intersection of Rainier Avenue/North McDowellBoulevard. 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-turn 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 ImplementingParty Applicant/Contractor - fie Enforcement Agency Public Works/CommunityDevelopment Department Monitoring Agency Public'Works/Community Development Department CULTURAL RESOURCES Required Mitigation Measures CULT-1 Archaeological Resources 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 preconstructioh 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-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. 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 inspection 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 arc-haeologist 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-1d If human remains are discovered at the project site during construction, workrat 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 (NM-IC) 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 • ATTACHMENT 10 Hines, Heather From: thestenros @comcast.net Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 8:26 AM To: Hines, Heather Subject: Resident 1609 Northstar Dr. Heather Hines Planning Manager Dear City Council of Petaluma, I am a resident and would like to express my IN FAVOR of the Deek Creek Village. II am having a bit of a problem with the back and forth of this project. I would love to see us not have. .. to get on the Hwy to go to Freidmans, I am in favor of the Tax revenue and the Jobs which will be created for our town. Since I have moved to Petaluma I have know about a project and that piece of property. In otherwords I had heard something would be going in at this location. Hence why not move forward instead of back and forth. This is 25 years ago. I would like to see us as a town which does not need to be"traveling'up and down the Highway for daily items needed for.maintence'and up keep of our home. Please present my voice at the meeting on the 24th of September, Thank you very much, Stella Stenros 1609 Northstar Dr. Petaluma, CA 94954 707-789-0378 1 10 I -j� 4 YA 2 , 7°1 74 5 it 7 ej tee tr- / t C k f i.S ,d-4 :-..., 7/7L 7 t- t 7 r g , , , ...,,,,.....„.ri 4 �C r z_, i �_ - . __, _Barbara Padget sEP X �20J� 15 Haven Drive Petaluma, CA 94952 .RECEIVED su182012 moo DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT l { ' I ccALU NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING W 5 APPEAL OF SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 285% APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT • DEER CREEK VILLAGE You are invited to-attend a City Conneil Meeting on a Project in Your Neighborhood NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the law firm of;Shute Mihaly & Weinberger, on behalf of the Petaluma Neighborhood Association,;has submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Site Plan and Architectural Review (SPAR) and".a Conditional Use Permit(CUP) for the Deer Creek Village Project(09-SPC-0091) located on North McDowell Boulevard between`Rainier Avenue and Lynch Creek:Way (APNs 007-380-005 mid 007-380-027). The Planning Commission approved SPAR for the:projeetand associated:master sign prograimand a CUP for a reduction from on-site parking requirements at their,meeting on August 14, 2012 The,appeal grounds.as:stated in the appeal letter focus on the Final Environmental Impact Report for the project, which was certified by the-City`Council.on April 2, 2012. The Deer Creek Village Project includes the development of approximately 345,000 square feet of commercial uses (retail, home improvement, office,fitness, and services) and,associated site improvements. • Meeting Date/Time: September 24, 2012 at 7:00-,p.m.. Meeting Location: City Council Chambers, City Hall of Petaluma, 11 English Street;Petaluma What WillHappen: You can comment on.the appeal. The City Council:will consider all public testimony and affirm, affirm.in part; or reverse the Planning Commission's decision that is the subject of the appeal: Efforts will`be made to accommodate disabilities. The City,Managers office must be notified at(707)778-4345 within 5 days from date:of publication of this'notice if you need special'accommodations. For accessiblemeetinginformation, please'call'(707) 778 4360 or ga TDD (707) 778-4480 hi accordance with the Americans:with Disabilities,Act, if you require special assistance to participate±in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's Office at (707) 778-4360 (voice) or (707) 778-4480 (TDD): Translators, American Sign Language interpreters, and/or assistive listening devices for individuals with hearing disabilities will be available upon request. A minimum of 48 hours is needed to ensure the availability of translation services: In consideration of those with multiple chemical sensitivities or,other environmental illness, it is requested that you refrain from wearing scented products. The City Clerk hereby certifies that this agenda has been posted in accordance with the requirements of the Government Code. If You Cannet:Atteud...You can send a,lettef to the Plaiming'Division, City of Petaluma, Fl English Street, Petaluma California, 94952. You can also-hand delivertit pr or to the meeting or email comments to hhihes @ci:petaluma.ca:us. This meeting and all City Council meetings are televised on the Petaluma Community Access Cable Channel 28: For More Information: You may contact Heather Hines, Planning Manager, at (707)778-4316 or hhines @ci.petaluma.ca.us. You can also come to the Planning.Division to review the project file. The office is open Monday through Thursdays from8:00a.m to 12:00 p.m. and 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. City Hall is,closed Fridays. If you challenge in court the matter described above; you may be limited to raising only those issues you or+someone else raised at the public hearing.,described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered at, or prior to, the above- .. referenced public hearing {Government Code Section 65009(b)(2)}. Judicial review of an administrative decision of the .City Council must be filed with the Court no later than the 90th day following'the date of.the Council's decision. (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6) • ATTACHMENT 12 PETALUMA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION 40 Fourth Street - Petaluma, CA 94952 August 13th, 2012 TO; Petaluma Planning Commission/Planning Staff 11 English Street Petaluma.CA 94952 Re: Deer Creek Village - Site Plan and Architectural Review FILE NUMBER: 09-SPC-0091 Dear Petaluma Planning Commission and Staff, Below are comments regarding the Deer Creek Village shopping center being proposed on North McDowell Blvd. Please submit our comments into the administrative record of the project. The Petaluma Neighborhood Association is a non-profit organization that advocates responsible planning and development in our community. We strongly oppose the site plan and architectural approval for Deer Creek Village, referred to as "the project' hence forth. The project being presented to you tonight-represents the deficiencies in the City's planning process. It also represents the developer's lack°of,commitment to design a better project that integrates with the surrounding neighborhoods and reduces the impacts on our community. The proposed site plan has made no attempt to reduce or mitigate the traffic impacts of the project. By redesigning the project to be more walkable and pedestrian oriented, the project could be better integrated into the surrounding area, and therefore help to reduce the amount of automobiles,trips in and out of the project site. The roadway layout and large island of asphalt in the middle of the site design will create,trafficcirculation problems, in and outside the project site Petaluma's General Plan`recommends the,extension of Lynch Creek Way through the project site Yet,the project site plan proposal has made no attempt to achieve this simple design element. Instead'.it cuts off Lynch Creek Way and uses it a,truck entrance into the lumber yard. We would like,to see an-attempt by the commission and staff to improveetraffic circulation and pedestrian safety by extending Lynch Creek Way through to Rainer Avenue, and also by integrating a grid street pattern into the overall site design.,A multi story parking garage.will also help to reduce the massive footprint; and common traffic issues of what is presently proposed as a parking lot. 1 � 2 � 1 PETALUMA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION • 40 Fourth Street - Petaluma, CA 94952 From what we can determine from the elevation drawings; there is very Mel any of the building frontages facing North McDowell Blvd. This is clearly a major design flaw in the project and needs°to be rectified. How can the Planning commission approve^a design proposal for the'site that does not have building frontages facing a main thoroughfare on the Eastside7A.redesign and reconfiguration of<the buildings to face North McDowell will not only integrate"the project with the surrounding community, but also will entice pedestrian mobility from adjacent businesses and neighborhoods. By the look of the project site plan and proposed architecture, it is obvious very little thought went into sustainability and reuse. The site plan is laid out in a typical autocentric, "suburban shopping center", manner with very little effort put into pedestrian circulation. The buildings consist mostly of tip-up boxes with exterior stucco facades. We request that the Planning Commission recommend an improved site plan that is not "a-typical" shopping center layout. Also, that the architectural style reflect the site's mixed-use classification, with multi-story buildings and a pedestrian oriented urban street scape. As many of you are aware, the,biggest issue;regardingthe proposed shopping center project, is the feasibility of future traffic mitigation measures. The impacts resulting from project related traffic on our community is a very serious threat to the safety and quality of life here:in Petaluma. As city planners you must seriously consider the consequences I of future.building development;and:seek to improve upon the existing conditions on the Eastside. Not approve projects that make conditions worse. North McDowell Boulevard and it's`intersections, are already highly impacted with traffic. Until the project can be redesigned into a pedestrian oriented mixed use project, that better suits the location, please consider not approving the Site Plan and Architecture design for Deer Creek Village. Thank you for your due dilgence. Sincerely,:Paul Francis --- Co-chair"Petaluma Neighborhood Association 2 ►2 � 2